Protection
avri <[email protected]> Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:00:51 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.gsmp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
i have seen and worked through a few possible solutions for the protection requirements, but i am looking for the one that is the simplest and requires the fewest changes to the protocol. i have started making some simplifying assumptions, and i am not sure to what extent the hold. So before making any changes to the spec i am hoping the specialists of protection will let me know if i am wrong. (and apologies in advance if i display glaring ignorance.) 1. 1+1 protection is not really that much different in terms of messages then any other add. First one creates a branch. Then, as is done for multicast, one adds other branches. The main difference is that one would have to designate the appropriate branches as the protection ones and thus distinguish them from multicast. Implicit in this assumption is that dedicated protection branches terminate on the same port as either the input or output port of the primary branch since they have a common label (either input or output) This would still leave issues of deletion, as I assume the protection link(s) should be deleted at the same time as the primary link. The simplest solution is for it to be a requirement that in deleting a protected link, the controller must also include delete the protection branch. 2. In the non dedicated protection modes one is reserving resources and notifying the switch that these resources are possibly available for use as protection/recovery links for designated branches. In the case of non dedicated protection, the protection link(s) can be associated with multiple connections. Assuming this is the case, then i could modify the reservation message to indicate which reservations are for protection branches and modify the connection messages to include several reservation ids. I am making the assumption that it is not necessary in the case of non-dedicated protection that the branches be on the same ports as either the input or output label. This will need to be accounted for. In the case of deletion of a primary branch, I also assume that the protection will not necessary be deleted, though it will be disassociated from the branch being deleted. I am not sure that this needs to be dealt within the GSMP messaging, though the switch would need to do the housekeeping. comments please! a.