%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection instead of this I-D. @techreport{shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-02, number = {draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-02}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection/02/}, author = {Andrew G. Malis and Loa Andersson and Huub van Helvoort and Jongyoon Shin and Lei Wang and Alessandro D'Alessandro}, title = {{S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires}}, pagetotal = 8, year = 2014, month = oct, day = 10, abstract = {In MPLS and 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 PEs (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW. This document describes how to achieve this protection by updating the existing procedures in RFC 6870. It also contains an optional approach based on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.}, }