IETF BMWG
MPLS Protection Mechanisms
Status and Update
Rajiv Papneja ([email protected])
Samir Vapiwala ([email protected])
Jay Karthik ([email protected])
Scott Poretsky ([email protected])
LE ROUX Jean-Louis([email protected]
Shankar Rao ([email protected])
66th IETF Meeting
Montreal
History/Background And Progress So Far
Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection
Mechanisms
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-00 June 2003
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01 Oct. 2003
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-02 Feb 2004
Parallel Efforts
Terminology For Protection
Benchmarking
draft-kimura-protection-term-00.txt - October 2002
draft-kimura-protection-term-01.txt - April 2003
draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt – October 2003
draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt – April 2005
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-03
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-04
July 2005
Common Terminology created With Effort
led by Kimura-san
Created single work item
with common Terminology
Received numerous comments for
additional test cases and
benchmarking metrics
Created
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05
Feb 2006
le
ab
c
i
l
p
Ap
TerminologyFor Protection
Benchmarking – July 2005
draft-poretsky-protection-term-00.txt
Applicable
c
De
5
00
2
r
be
m
e
More Protection Scenarios Proposed Under
(draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
Mailing List Decision
to Merge The two Efforts – Followed by action item
from Dallas IETF
1. Significant Interest in the effort
2. Interest has reached peak
3. Formal Proposal Submitted to the Mailing lIst
4. All Positive support/Significant received
5. New Merged Draft Submitted
Final Decision
New Draft standing to
become the WG item –
draft-papneja-mplsprotection-methmerge-00.txt
June 2006
2
draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge
After an overwhelming support on the list 2
complementing methodology drafts were merged
All the comments to the 2 drafts were addressed in
the merged draft
Methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection
mechanisms
draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt
3
Feedbacks on FRR Protection Meth Draft:
So far So Good
Overall there seems to be great amount of interest in this
work
As more and more ISPs consider deploying this feature, they
are looking towards a uniform methodology and terminology
across multiple FRR implementations
Many comments on Traffic Generation section
Requests to provide more information on failure detection
times (may not be negligible)
Need to describe about RSVP refresh along backup path
Suggestion to add background traffic
When talking of # of labels need to specify where
BFD timer info missing in reporting format
Significance of having large number of scenarios
Nits, Some more clarifications and other editorial work
Recommendation to highlight importance of correlated
failures
4
Highlights of merged draft
Retain the key elements of both drafts
Avoid any duplicate test cases or procedures
Incorporate comments received for both the drafts
Simplify topologies
Total of eight scenarios presented in the merged
draft
Use common terminology as defined in
draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt
Draft-poretsky-protection-term-02.txt
Incorporates all the received on this item
Including the responses received for the proposal
5
Current Status
Current Status - Waiting to hear from WG Leadership on the
Acceptance of the Work Item
As per previous meeting minutes
Appears more than significant interest in the BMWG working
The interest has reached its peak
70% of attendees in the last meeting supported the work item
The authors submitted the official proposal on May 3 and call for
support ended June 2, 2006
No negative support received
Overwhelming support on the mailing in favor of making this as work
group item
Merged draft was submitted on June 19th, 2006
Current Milestones
"Terminology For Protection Benchmarking,“ - draft-poretskyprotection-term-02.txt,
Ready for WGLC 07/06 and Ready for IESG 11/06.
"Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking,“ - draft-papnejampls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt
Submitted 06/06 and Ready for WGLC 11/06
Ready for IESG 04/07
6
Acknowledgements
Thanks to BMWG-ers for support shown in the work
item
The authors wish to thank the following for their
invaluable input to the merged document
Curtis Villamizer
Jean Philip Vasseur
Karu Ratnam
Arun Gandhi
We would like to thank Agilent for their review of
this draft and execution of the methodology to
ensure its correctness
7