RE: [RPRWG] PAH: Protection Ad Hoc meeting

[Leon Bruckman <leonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

The OAM-AH discussed the sub-class A0 reservation and decided to ask the Topology AH to the specific the protocol to convey this information, due to its communality with the topology information. Please add this topic to the PAH agenda.

During our discussions we noted the following issues:

- Each station in the ring shall indicate to all the other stations its sub-class A0 reservations for each link in each ringlet. This information can be used by the stations to verify the reservation in each link as required for spatial provisioning (see clause 6.2 in draft 0.3).

- Special care should be taken when defining how this protocol operates under wrap and steer protection events. It is not trivial that spatial provisioning and fast (50 msec) protection can be achieved.

Please add me to the PAH distribution list

Leon

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Kao [mailto:jkao@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:08 PM
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] PAH: Protection Ad Hoc meeting

Hi

Our first Protection Ad Hoc plan to start at

Time: Wed 8/ 7 10:00AM PST
Duration: 2 hours
Location:
Cisco System, Building 16
San Jose, CA 95134

Please let me know if you want to attend in person or through conference call by 8/.2.
So that I can compile PAH email list and set up the conference call appropriately.

The tentative agenda for the first meeting

1. Verify that issues list is complete
2. Partition tasks as appropriate,
3. Plan order of resolving the issues,
4. Set up process ground rules

If you have any suggestion for agenda or contribution you want to make in the first meeting,
please let me know by 8/4 so that I can allocate time slot in the agenda.

As for the issues, Jason and I have group them as the followings.

A. Determine partitioning of topology and protection functions between protocols

·       Clearly identify and itemize interface between topology, protection, and other modules within the MAC

        (may be impacted as issues in B and C are addressed as well)

·       Are topology and protection separate from a protocol standpoint and/or from a messaging standpoint?
·       Clearly identify triggers for sending topology messages
·       Can protection distinguish, using only protection messaging, whether a newly connected station is a
        new neighbor or the same as a previously connected neighbor

B. Address remaining topology-specific issues

·       What actions, if any, are taken upon failure to receive topology messages?

·       Criteria and algorithm for consistency checking of topology image
·       Get input from RAH on units and ranges of provisioned class A bandwidth information reported in topology messages
·       Generate revised topology clause for September/October mtg.

C. Address remaining protection-specific issues in the following suggested order:
Grp a:

·       How uniform should the behavior of wrapping and steering be in terms of reporting of link status throughout the ring?

·       Is the wrapping status bit required?
·       Insertion of steering station into an operating wrapping ring
·       Do multiple signal degrades result in a single wrap or no wraps?
Grp b:

·       How do non-revertive modes work for steering and wrapping?

·       Retransmission of messages: exponential backoff or fixed period, what are limits on period?
·       How is variability of fairness advertisement interval handled as related to the loss of keep-alive trigger?
Grp c:

·       Generate revised protection clause for September/October mtg.