Pseudo-Wire Protection Mustapha Aissaoui, Florin Balus, Matthew Bocci, Hamid Ould-Brahim, Ping Pan IETF 66, Montreal

2 What we have learned since last IETF PW protection may mean different things to different people: –End-to-end path protection –Congestion relief –Multi-homed AC protection –Single-segment protection –Multi-segment protection –… So, not only do we need protocol extension specification(s), we may need a framework/user document as well.

3 Key Changes from the previous version Defined a Preference TLV and a Protection TLV –Preference TLV: provide the capability for PW’s to preempt each other in case of congestion –Protection TLV: provide the protection information for Path Protection Removed 1:N protection option –This does not make sense after further discussion Added more text on messaging processing

4 PW Path Protection Protection TLV contains: –Reference ID: working and protection PW’s must be uniquely identified –Protection information: CAC-desired, fate-sharing working protection Reference ID is needed to know what to process on S-PE’s

5 PW Congestion Control Preference TLV contains: –Preference level of the PW’s –Use setup and holding preference to control the preemption PW: high preference PW: low preference Preempt less important PW’s Send status back

6 Other protection cases… to be worked out in details PW Segment Protection Backup PW Multi-homed PW Protection Individual PW’s

7 Next Step The current proposal supports –PW preemption –PW Path Protection Like to –Iron out other issues –Work with the framework/user-case draft people –Gather more feedback from carriers –Make this into a WG Working Document THANK YOU ALL