Proposal to Revise RFC4427 Recovery Terminology for GMPLS Protection and Restoration
40 likes | 154 Vues
This proposal seeks to amend RFC4427 by aligning the prioritization of protection switch commands with ITU-T guidelines. Currently, the priority for Forced Switch (FS) and Signal Fail on Protection (SF-P) do not follow the recommended hierarchy, causing potential disruptions in traffic. It is recommended that in-band protection schemes prioritize SF-P above FS to enhance network resilience. Options include replacing RFC4427, issuing an RFC4427 bis, or issuing an ERRATUM to clarify these priorities.
Proposal to Revise RFC4427 Recovery Terminology for GMPLS Protection and Restoration
E N D
Presentation Transcript
what New: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority Proposes to change text in informational RFC4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for GMPLS
why In the current RFC4427 the protection switch the priority of Forced Switch (FS) and Signal Fail on Protection (SF-P) is not aligned with the priorities defined by ITU-T in e.g. G.841. Because in-band protection switch commands are sent on the protection path, SF-P should have a higher priority than FS. In this case a FS will not disrupt traffic.
how • In RFC4427 make the distinction: • protection schemes which DO NOT use an in-band communication channel:FS has highest priority (over SF-P) • protection schemes which DO use an in-band communication channel:SF-P has the highest priority (over FS)
how (continued) Options: • Replace RFC4427 • Issue an RFC4427 bis • Issue an ERRATUM to add a note. Huub.van.Helvoort@Huawei.com