%% You should probably cite rfc7771 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-04, number = {draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-04}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection/04/}, author = {Andrew G. Malis and Loa Andersson and Huub van Helvoort and Jongyoon Shin and Lei Wang and Alessandro D'Alessandro}, title = {{Switching Provider Edge (S-PE) Protection for MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires}}, pagetotal = 9, year = 2015, month = oct, day = 22, abstract = {In MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) environments, statically provisioned Single-Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not protected end-to-end against failure of one of the Switching Provider Edge Routers (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW. This document describes how to achieve this protection via redundant MS-PWs by updating the existing procedures in RFC 6870. It also contains an optional approach based on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.}, }