< draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-01.txt		draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02.txt >
	Network Working Group A. Malis		Network Working Group A. Malis, Ed.
	Internet-Draft L. Andersson		Internet-Draft L. Andersson
	Updates: 6870 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd		Updates: 6870 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
	Intended status: Standards Track H. van Helvoort		Intended status: Standards Track H. van Helvoort
	Expires: October 24, 2015 Hai Gaoming BV		Expires: December 3, 2015 Hai Gaoming BV
	J. Shin		J. Shin
	SK Telecom		SK Telecom
	L. Wang		L. Wang
	China Mobile		China Mobile
	A. D'Alessandro		A. D'Alessandro
	Telecom Italia		Telecom Italia
	April 22, 2015		June 1, 2015
	S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires		S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires
	draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-01.txt		draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single-		In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single-
	Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via		Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via
	MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically		MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically
	provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the		provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the
	MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and		MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and
	MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not		MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not
	protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs		protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 34 ¶
	2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-		2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-
	PWs and MS-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		PWs and MS-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach . . . . . . . . 6		Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach . . . . . . . . 6
	A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires . . . . 7		A.2. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	As described in RFC 5659 [RFC5659], Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-		As described in RFC 5659 [RFC5659], Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-
	PWs) consist of terminating PEs (T-PEs), one or more switching PEs		PWs) consist of terminating PEs (T-PEs), one or more switching PEs
	(S-PEs), and a sequence of PW segments that connects one of the T-PEs		(S-PEs), and a sequence of PW segments that connects one of the T-PEs
	with its "adjacent" S-PE, connects this S-PE with the next S-PE in		with its "adjacent" S-PE, connects this S-PE with the next S-PE in
	the sequence and so on until the last S-PE is connected by the last		the sequence and so on until the last S-PE is connected by the last
	skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶
	LDP. This document describes how to achieve protection against S-PE		LDP. This document describes how to achieve protection against S-PE
	failure in a static MS-PW by extending RFC 6870 to be applicable for		failure in a static MS-PW by extending RFC 6870 to be applicable for
	statically provisioned MS-PWs pseudowires (PWs) as well.		statically provisioned MS-PWs pseudowires (PWs) as well.
	This document also contains an optional alternative approach based on		This document also contains an optional alternative approach based on
	MPLS-TP Linear Protection. This approach, described in Appendix A,		MPLS-TP Linear Protection. This approach, described in Appendix A,
	MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints for the protected		MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints for the protected
	MS-PW in order to be used. See Appendix A for further details on		MS-PW in order to be used. See Appendix A for further details on
	this alternative approach.		this alternative approach.
			This document differs from [I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] in that
			this draft provides end-to-end resiliency for static MS-PWs, while
			[I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe] provides resiliency at intermediate
			S-PEs, rather than end-to-end resiliency, and for both dynamically
			signaled and static MS-PWs.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-PWs and		2. Extension to RFC 6870 to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-PWs and
	MS-PWs		MS-PWs
	Section 3.2.3 of RFC 6718 and Section A.5 of RFC 6870 document how to		Section 3.2.3 of RFC 6718 and Section A.5 of RFC 6870 document how to
	skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶
	TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational		TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational
	Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical		Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical
	Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network		Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
	Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014.		Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014.
	[RFC7324] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear		[RFC7324] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
	Protection", RFC 7324, July 2014.		Protection", RFC 7324, July 2014.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ietf-pals-redundancy-spe]
			Dong, J. and H. Wang, "Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE",
			draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01 (work in progress), May
			2015.
	[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-		[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
	Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,		Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
	October 2009.		October 2009.
	[RFC6718] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire		[RFC6718] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire
	Redundancy", RFC 6718, August 2012.		Redundancy", RFC 6718, August 2012.
	Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach		Appendix A. Optional Linear Protection Approach
	A.1. Introduction		A.1. Introduction
	In "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" [RFC6378], as		In "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" [RFC6378], as
	well as in the later updates of this RFC in "MPLS Transport Profile		well as in the later updates of this RFC in "MPLS Transport Profile
	(MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of		(MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of
	SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network Operators" [RFC7271] and in		SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network Operators" [RFC7271] and in
	"Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection" [RFC7324], the		"Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection" [RFC7324], the
	Protection State Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS		Protection State Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS
	LSPs only.		LSPs only.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶
	From a PSC protocol point of view it is possible to view a SS-PW as a		From a PSC protocol point of view it is possible to view a SS-PW as a
	single hop LSP, and a MS-PW as a multiple hop LSP. Thus, this		single hop LSP, and a MS-PW as a multiple hop LSP. Thus, this
	provides end-to-end protection for the SS-PW or MS-PW. The G-ACh		provides end-to-end protection for the SS-PW or MS-PW. The G-ACh
	carrying the PSC protocol information is placed in the label stack		carrying the PSC protocol information is placed in the label stack
	directly beneath the PW identifier. The PSC protocol will then work		directly beneath the PW identifier. The PSC protocol will then work
	as specified in RFCs 6378, 7271, and 7324.		as specified in RFCs 6378, 7271, and 7324.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Andrew G. Malis		Andrew G. Malis (editor)
	Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd		Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
	Email: agmalis@gmail.com		Email: agmalis@gmail.com
	Loa Andersson		Loa Andersson
	Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd		Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
	Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com		Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
	Huub van Helvoort		Huub van Helvoort
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	8 lines changed or deleted		18 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/