1. Pseudo-Wire Protection Ping Pan ppan@hammerheadsystems.com IETF 63

2. Why? Node 2 Node1 PW (Important traffic) PW (Best effort) Tunnel-1 (BW1) Tunnel-2 (BW2), backup Tunnel-1 Switch-over Conventional mechanism would work, if 1.Tunnel-1 and Tunnel-2 have the same bandwidth (i.e.,BW1 = BW2) 2.All PW’s are equally important Otherwise, if BW2 < BW1, in case of Tunnel-1 failure, Important traffic may get dropped by Best Effort So, it needs to provide per-PW protection Each PW needs to have its own “importance” level During switch-over, preempt others when necessary How to assign “importance” level?

3. Node3 Why Protocol Extension? Node 2 Node1 PW Allow one-sided provisioning Node 2 Node1 PW Allow provisioning multi-hop

4. How to Signal? Node 2 Node1 PW (ID, Precedence-1) Adjacency-1 Adjacency-2 There must be multiple parallel links between two edge nodes (or multiple adjacencies) Signal into the adjacencies with same ID, different preference levels etc. ID: same as defined in the control-protocol draft What is defined? An optional PROTECTION TLV, used during setup A preference level field A protection scheme field: warm vs. hot standby

5. Next Step Continue to gather feedback Implementation interop Work it out more to support MHOP (& Segment PW) Request to be a WG Working Document –To make the above easier THANK YOU ALL