|
Samir and Jay,
Thank you very much for your comments in this email
and the one that immediately followed it. MPLS Protection
Performance is an area in which service providers have expressed a
tremendous amount of interest and we as vendors need to know what we are
delivering. I do see the BMWG as the ideal place to define the benchmark
metrics and methodologies.
Some of the suggestions you provided in the emails
can be incorporated into the existing MPLS Protection Mechanisms Methodology
Draft. For example, tunnel scaling could be added to the Test
Considerations and Test Reporting sections. Your suggestion to add
test cases for FRR with LDP over RSVP-TE is right on. Jean-Louis LeRoux
suggested the same with strong support from Rajiv Papneja. We discussed
this and decided while it is the right thing to do, it would be best to make
this a methodology document separate from the MPLS Protection Mechanisms
Benchmarking. I hope you agree.
If the proposed Sub-IP Protection Mechanism
Benchmarking moves ahead to be a BWMG work item, then I would suggest that
Jean-Louis, Rajiv, you, (and others?) author the LDP over RSVP-TE Protection
Benchmarking Methodology. Another alternative could be to reduce the scope
of the Sub-IP Protection Mechanism work item to MPLS Protection only. This
would mean that there would need to be a separate work item proposal for the HA
Benchmarking that was intended to be covered under Sub-IP. If the AD
and WG Chairs were fine with two separate work items for MPLS and HA then I
think that would be best to facilitate progress on the documents.
The discussions of both technical issues specific
to MPLS Protection benchmarking and the BMWG work item agenda are both very
worthwhile. I hope we can discuss this on the Vancouver agenda. Of
course email is great until then.
Scott
|
_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg