Internet DRAFT - draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority
draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority
CCAMP WG Huub van Helvoort
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 4427
Intended status: Standards track July 11, 2013
Expires: January 2014
Update Forced Switch Priority
draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 11, 2014.
van Helvoort Expires January 11, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Update Forced Switch Priority July 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Abstract
This document clarifies the definitions related to Manual Switch and
Forced Switch. This document updates RFC 4427.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Manual Switch and Forced Switch.............................. 3
3. Security Considerations ..................................... 3
4. IANA Considerations ......................................... 3
5. References .................................................. 4
5.1. Normative References.................................... 4
5.2. Informative References.................................. 4
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 4
1. Introduction
The external commands, Manual Switch and Forced Switch, provide an
operator the ability to control the recovery schemes. The
definitions in [RFC4427] provide an informative description but do
not provide enough description to distinguish the processing of
these commands for usage with priority treatment. The current
description has led to the open question of how the commands are to
be processed for relative priority treatment.
This document provides clarification of the terms relative to
[G.808.1].
van Helvoort Expires January 11, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Update Forced Switch Priority July 2013
2. Manual Switch and Forced Switch
This section updates [RFC4427]. Section 4.13 of [RFC4427] contains
the following text regarding the definitions:
D. Forced switch-over for normal traffic:
A switch-over action, initiated externally, that switches normal
traffic to the recovery LSP/span, unless an equal or higher
priority switch-over command is in effect.
E. Manual switch-over for normal traffic:
A switch-over action, initiated externally, that switches normal
traffic to the recovery LSP/span, unless a fault condition exists
on other LSPs/spans (including the recovery LSP/span) or an equal
or higher priority switch-over command is in effect.
This definition does not provide enough detail with respect to their
usage relative to priorities. In order to avoid mis-interpretation,
this document adds the following Note as clarification:
Note:
For 1+1 protection schemes (which do not use a communication
channel), a Forced Switch over for normal traffic will have the
highest priority, it will not be overridden by a signal fail on
the protection channel. For other protection schemes (which do use
a communication channel), a Forced Switch over for normal traffic
will be overridden if a signal fail is present on the protection
channel. Definitions of ITU-T terminology in this section are
intended to aid understanding of the concepts. For the full
definition of these terms and their use, the reader is referred to
the appropriate ITU-T Recommendations and RFCs.
3. Security Considerations
This document clarifies usage of terms defined in [RFC4427]. No new
information is conveyed; therefore no additional considerations are
included here.
4. IANA Considerations
There are no items for IANA to consider.
van Helvoort Expires January 11, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Update Forced Switch Priority July 2013
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC4427] Mannie E. and Papadimitriou D., "Recovery (Protection and
Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) ", RFC 4427, March 2006.
5.2. Informative References
[G.808.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.808.1, "Generic protection
switching - Linear trail and subnetwork protection",
February 2010.
6. Acknowledgments
<Add any acknowledgements>
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Huub van Helvoort
Huawei Technologies
Karspeldreef 4
Amsterdam 1011 CJ
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 4300832
Email: Huub.van.Helvoort@huawei.com
van Helvoort Expires January 11, 2014 [Page 4]