Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Ring Protection
draft-liu-mpls-tp-ring-protection-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Guoman Liu , Jian Yang , Lili Jiang , Fu zhentao | ||
| Last updated | 2010-09-25 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
according to RFC 5654 MPLS-TP Requirement, there are two requirements : requirement 56.B Recovery techniques used for P2P and P2MP should be identical to simplify implementation and operation.another requirement as section 2.5.6.1 describles: within the context of recovery in MPLS-TP networks,the optimization criteria considered in ring topologies are as follows: 1 minimize the number of OAM entities that are needed to trigger the recovery operation; 2 Minimize the number of elements of recovery in the ring; 3 Minimize the number of labels required for the protection paths across the ring; 4 minimize the amount of control and management plane transactions during maintenance operation. this decument will describle and provide two types of ring protection solutions. both solutions can satisfy these requirements of recovery in mpls-tp ring network.
Authors
Guoman Liu
Jian Yang
Lili Jiang
Fu zhentao
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)