Project

General

Profile

Support #555

Link Failover reliability problem - implication to protection application

Added by Herbert Falk over 1 year ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
Triage
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Profile or Guideline
Start date:
02/16/2021
Due date:
08/16/2021 (about 12 months late)
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
ID:
2
Source:
H30
TF Unique ID:
2 # H30
WG10 Proposal:
Estimated Completion:
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:
No
To discuss in WG10:
No
Short Proposal:

H30 to provide more details.

Standard(s):

Description

• Failover at link layer – from 2ms to 2 sec.
Link Failover reliability problem –
Solution 1: need for end-end to connection oriented monitoring
Feedback: Can relays monitor end-end link integrity? What existing IEEE 802.x standards? What new network standards – PSCC, …? Can failover be less then 1ms?
Solution 2: End-end communication path monitoring + centralized network monitoring including relay communication.
FAST switchover to backup protection (within 1 ms).

To define reassessment for other relative parties. To be completed by H30

#1

Updated by Herbert Falk over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to Accepted
#2

Updated by Vladan Cvejic over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from • Failover at link layer – from 2ms to 2 sec. Link Failover reliability problem – Solution 1: need for end-end to connection or to Link Failover reliability problem - implication to protection application
  • Category set to Profile or Guideline
  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting set to No

Checking done.

#3

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo over 1 year ago

  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from No to Yes
#4

Updated by Vladan Cvejic over 1 year ago

  • Due date set to 08/16/2021
  • Status changed from Accepted to Triage
  • Start date set to 02/16/2021
  • Short Proposal set to H30 to provide more details.
  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from Yes to No
  • To discuss in WG10 set to No

H30 to provide more details.

#5

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 8 months ago

With PRP/HSR this should not be an issue, clarify with Dustin

#6

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 6 months ago

2 points:
1. Link status
- Link status could be reported by SNMP protocol (MIB) (IEEE 802.3.1-2013)
- SNMP mandatory in IEDs? It seems too hard
- LCCH LN? ChLiv / RedChLiv
- IEC 62351 is purely security related
- IED or switches should provide a MIB for monitoring purposes
- Herb will check where in the standard IEC 61850-90-4
- IEC 61850-90-22 Autorouting section 4.3.2
- IEC 61850-90-28 Comm supervision
2. Faiolver mechanism
- IEC 61850 allows HSR, PRP, RSTP as redundancy mechanism. Failover mechanism is described in 90-4.
- Action: Take a look on 90-4 and see if clarification is needed for failover use

#7

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 6 months ago

  • To discuss in WG10 changed from No to Yes

On the link failover topic, the ask is:
1. Link Monitoring: WG10 to map MIB (SNMP) to an a new attribute and make it available for monitoring –
• Minimum requirement is to have HEALTHY/FAIL status but it would helpful to have more detailed information.
• The expectation is not to make this mandatory at this time but in future
2. Link Failover: WG10 to include in Guide to help users understand:
• The options available on link monitoring
• Link-failover options & timelines & architectures
• HSR/PRP usage & monitoring

There are 2 topics: Link Monitoring and Linkfailover and both of them are not out of scope of 61850 as it is upto the users to decide on implementation based on their priorities. I agree that WG10 Guide can make recommendation on superior practice for PRP & HSR for GOOSE/SV applications but it does not make sense to use HSR/PRP for a metering application which is polled once every hour while link monitoring & link failover still has a use in this application.

#8

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 6 months ago

  • To discuss in WG10 changed from Yes to No

- 90-4 only mentions we should not take care about link failover because we have PRP/HSR as redundancy mechanism
- Topic: supervision
- Use LCCH.ChLiv and RedChLiv to indicate the status of the physical channels
- 90-4 models SNMP MIB to IEC 61850 LN, maybe it is not complete --> This should be a different issue in redmine
- 62351-7 maps MIB to 61850
- We need a detailed use case about SNMP information that needs to be mapped in IEC 61850 or with direction is needed
- Confirm if we are talking about SNMP mapping to IEC 61850 data model environment
- There is no request to do something with 90-4
- Topic: standardization
- You can use link failover transparent to 61850
- It is out of the scope of the standard
- IEEE 802.3ad "Link Aggregtion" is not the same thing as link failover

Actions:
- If LCCH.ChLiv/RedChLiv is not enough, then we need more information from H30
- Maybe SNMP map to IEC61850 in 90-4 is not enough. We have to create a new issue for this in redmine an provide users information
- To discuss in the plenary:
- 90-4 update
- 90-4/3 data models to 7-4 IS (for edition 3)

Also available in: Atom PDF