mef protection supercomm汇总.ppt

MEF ProtectionWork Pascal Menezes Technical Contributor June 3rd 2003 Agnostic to any transport and its related protection schemes. Agnostic to any topology Does not rely on a certain topology for protection (ex: ring) Can work with any topology (ring, mesh, mixed, etc) Degree of protection is dependent on the richness of the redundancy of the topology Co-exist with any transport protection schemes (ex: SONET, RPR, 802.1d. Primarily designed for the protection of EVCs. Based on MPLS based schemes because of the layer 2 service work in IETF for PPVPN (ex: VPLS, VPWS, etc) and PWE3 WGs. This was the scheme chosen because of scalability and inter-MEN connectivity advantages. It is transparent to IEEE schemes (STP, Link Agg, etc) and it assumes IEEE protection schemes are part of the protection of an Ethernet transport mechanism (ie: it is part of the transport mechanism of the provider). Subscriber’s protection scheme is transparent (ie: STP, multi-homed) Extensions to the PRMs for IEEE based technologies Looking into 802.1ad work and how to extend the framework interworking Work done in the MEF Protocol and Transport Group Protection Requirements Document Status is Straw Ballot Protection Framework Document Status is Straw Ballot MPLS Protection Implementation Agreement Status is Straw Ballot Protection switching times. Failure detection requirements Protection resource allocation requirements Topology requirements Failure notification requirements Restoration and revertiveness requirements Transparency for end user Security requirements Connectivity restoration time Sub 50msec Sub 200msec Sub 2 sec Sub 5 sec Protection type 1+1 1:1 1:n m:1 m:n Revertive or non-revertive mode Reversion time Degrade condition threshold (ex: packet loss) QoS preservation Protection And ProtectedTransport Sub-Networks Generic approach – PRM interoperability with any kind of transport / topology / protected MPLS-subnetwork / logical-link. Failures within the protected-transport/subne