text:
RFC3386: Network Hierarchy and Multilayer Survivability
Download in PDF format Download in text formatNetwork Working Group W. Lai, Ed. Request for Comments: 3386 AT&T Category: Informational D. McDysan, Ed. WorldCom November 2002 Network Hierarchy and Multilayer Survivability Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document presents a proposal of the near-term and practical requirements for network survivability and hierarchy in current service provider environments. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2]. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Table of Contents 1. Introduction..............................................2 2. Terminology and Concepts..................................5 2.1 Hierarchy................................................6 2.1.1 Vertical Hierarchy.....................................5 2.1.2 Horizontal Hierarchy...................................6 2.2 Survivability Terminology................................6 2.2.1 Survivability..........................................7 2.2.2 Generic Operations.....................................7 2.2.3 Survivability Techniques...............................8 2.2.4 Survivability Performance..............................9 2.3 Survivability Mechanisms: Comparison....................10 3. Survivability............................................11 3.1 Scope...................................................11 3.2 Required initial set of survivability mechanisms........12 3.2.1 1:1 Path Protection with Pre-Established Capacity.....12 3.2.2 1:1 Path Protection with Pre-Planned Capacity.........13 3.2.3 Local Restoration.....................................13 3.2.4 Path Restoration......................................14 3.3 Applications Supported..................................14 3.4 Timing Bounds for Survivability Mechanisms..............15 3.5 Coordination Among Layers...............................16 3.6 Evolution Toward IP Over Optical........................17 4. Hierarchy Requirements...................................17 4.1 Historical Context......................................17 4.2 Applications for Horizontal Hierarchy...................18 4.3 Horizontal Hierarchy Requirements.......................19 5. Survivability and Hierarchy..............................19 6. Security Considerations..................................20 7. References...............................................21 8. Acknowledgments..........................................22 9. Contributing Authors.....................................22 Appendix A: Questions used to help develop requirements.....23 Editors' Addresses..........................................26 Full Copyright Statement....................................27 1. Introduction This document is the result of the Network Hierarchy and Survivability Techniques Design Team established within the Traffic Engineering Working Group. This team collected and documented current and near term requirements for survivability and hierarchy in service provider environments. For clarity, an expanded set of definitions is included. The team determined that there appears to be a need to define a small set of interoperable survivability approaches in packet and non-packet networks. Suggested approaches include path-based as well as one that repairs connections in Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 proximity to the network fault. They operate primarily at a single network layer. For hierarchy, there did not appear to be a driving near-term need for work on "vertical hierarchy," defined as communication between network layers such as Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)/optical and Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). In particular, instead of direct exchange of signaling and routing between vertical layers, some looser form of coordination and communication, such as the specification of hold-off timers, is a nearer term need. For "horizontal hierarchy" in data networks, there are several pressing needs. The requirement is to be able to set up many Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a service provider network with hierarchical Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). This is necessary to support layer 2 and layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) services that require edge-to-edge signaling across a core network. This document presents a proposal of the near-term and practical requirements for network survivability and hierarchy in current service provider environments. With feedback from the working group solicited, the objective is to help focus the work that is being addressed in the TEWG (Traffic Engineering Working Group), CCAMP (Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group), and other working groups. A main goal of this work is to provide some expedience for required functionality in multi-vendor service provider networks. The initial focus is primarily on intra-domain operations. However, to maintain consistency in the provision of end-to-end service in a multi-provider environment, rules governing the operations of survivability mechanisms at domain boundaries must also be specified. While such issues are raised and discussed, where appropriate, they will not be treated in depth in the initial release of this document. The document first develops a set of definitions to be used later in this document and potentially in other documents as well. It then addresses the requirements and issues associated with service restoration, hierarchy, and finally a short discussion of survivability in hierarchical context. Here is a summary of the findings: A. Survivability Requirements o need to define a small set of interoperable survivability approaches in packet and non-packet networks o suggested survivability mechanisms include - 1:1 path protection with pre-established backup capacity (non- shared) - 1:1 path protection with pre-planned backup capacity (shared) Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 - local restoration with repairs in proximity to the network fault - path restoration through source-based rerouting o timing bounds for service restoration to support voice call cutoff (140 msec to 2 sec), protocol timer requirements in premium data services, and mission critical applications o use of restoration priority for service differentiation B. Hierarchy Requirements B.1. Horizontally Oriented Hierarchy (Intra-Domain) o ability to set up many LSPs in a service provider network with hierarchical IGP, for the support of layer 2 and layer 3 VPN services o requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be developed to provide guidance for any necessary protocol extensions B.2. Vertically Oriented Hierarchy The following functionality for survivability is common on most routing equipment today. o near-term need is some loose form of coordination and communication based on the use of nested hold-off timers, instead of direct exchange of signaling and routing between vertical layers o means for an upper layer to immediately begin recovery actions in the event that a lower layer is not configured to perform recovery C. Survivability Requirements in Horizontal Hierarchy o protection of end-to-end connection is based on a concatenated set of connections, each protected within their area o mechanisms for connection routing may include (1) a network element that participates on both sides of a boundary (e.g., OSPF ABR) - note that this is a common point of failure; (2) a route server o need for inter-area signaling of survivability information (1) to enable a "least common denominator" survivability mechanism at the boundary; (2) to convey the success or failure of the service restoration action; e.g., if a part of a "connection" is down on one side of a boundary, there is no need for the other side to recover from failures Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 2. Terminology and Concepts 2.1 Hierarchy Hierarchy is a technique used to build scalable complex systems. It is based on an abstraction, at each level, of what is most significant from the details and internal structures of the levels further away. This approach makes use of a general property of all hierarchical systems composed of related subsystems that interactions between subsystems decrease as the level of communication between subsystems decreases. Network hierarchy is an abstraction of part of a network's topology, routing and signaling mechanisms. Abstraction may be used as a mechanism to build large networks or as a technique for enforcing administrative, topological, or geographic boundaries. For example, network hierarchy might be used to separate the metropolitan and long-haul regions of a network, or to separate the regional and backbone sections of a network, or to interconnect service provider networks (with BGP which reduces a network to an Autonomous System). In this document, network hierarchy is considered from two perspectives: (1) Vertically oriented: between two network technology layers. (2) Horizontally oriented: between two areas or administrative subdivisions within the same network technology layer. 2.1.1 Vertical Hierarchy Vertical hierarchy is the abstraction, or reduction in information, which would be of benefit when communicating information across network technology layers, as in propagating information between optical and router networks. In the vertical hierarchy, the total network functions are partitioned into a series of functional or technological layers with clear logical, and maybe even physical, separation between adjacent layers. Survivability mechanisms either currently exist or are being developed at multiple layers in networks [3]. The optical layer is now becoming capable of providing dynamic ring and mesh restoration functionality, in addition to traditional 1+1 or 1:1 protection. The Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)/Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET) layer provides survivability capability with automatic protection switching (APS), as well as self-healing ring and mesh restoration architectures. Similar functionality has been defined in the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Layer, with work ongoing to also provide such functionality using MPLS [4]. At the IP layer, Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 rerouting is used to restore service continuity following link and node outages. Rerouting at the IP layer, however, occurs after a period of routing convergence, which may require a few seconds to several minutes to complete [5]. 2.1.2 Horizontal Hierarchy Horizontal hierarchy is the abstraction that allows a network at one technology layer, for instance a packet network, to scale. Examples of horizontal hierarchy include BGP confederations, separate Autonomous Systems, and multi-area OSPF. In the horizontal hierarchy, a large network is partitioned into multiple smaller, non-overlapping sub-networks. The partitioning criteria can be based on topology, network function, administrative policy, or service domain demarcation. Two networks at the *same* hierarchical level, e.g., two Autonomous Systems in BGP, may share a peer relation with each other through some loose form of coupling. On the other hand, for routing in large networks using multi-area OSPF, abstraction through the aggregation of routing information is achieved through a hierarchical partitioning of the network. 2.2 Survivability Terminology In alphabetical order, the following terms are defined in this section: backup entity, same as protection entity (section 2.2.2) extra traffic (section 2.2.2) non-revertive mode (section 2.2.2) normalization (section 2.2.2) preemptable traffic, same as extra traffic (section 2.2.2) preemption priority (section 2.2.4) protection (section 2.2.3) protection entity (section 2.2.2) protection switching (section 2.2.3) protection switch time (section 2.2.4) recovery (section 2.2.2) recovery by rerouting, same as restoration (section 2.2.3) recovery entity, same as protection entity (section 2.2.2) restoration (section 2.2.3) restoration priority (section 2.2.4) restoration time (section 2.2.4) revertive mode (section 2.2.2) shared risk group (SRG) (section 2.2.2) survivability (section 2.2.1) working entity (section 2.2.2) Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 2.2.1 Survivability Survivability is the capability of a network to maintain service continuity in the presence of faults within the network [6]. Survivability mechanisms such as protection and restoration are implemented either on a per-link basis, on a per-path basis, or throughout an entire network to alleviate service disruption at affordable costs. The degree of survivability is determined by the network's capability to survive single failures, multiple failures, and equipment failures. 2.2.2 Generic Operations This document does not discuss the sequence of events of how network failures are monitored, detected, and mitigated. For more detail of this aspect, see [4]. Also, the repair process following a failure is out of the scope here. A working entity is the entity that is used to carry traffic in normal operation mode. Depending upon the context, an entity can be a channel or a transmission link in the physical layer, an Label Switched Path (LSP) in MPLS, or a logical bundle of one or more LSPs. A protection entity, also called backup entity or recovery entity, is the entity that is used to carry protected traffic in recovery operation mode, i.e., when the working entity is in error or has failed. Extra traffic, also referred to as preemptable traffic, is the traffic carried over the protection entity while the working entity is active. Extra traffic is not protected, i.e., when the protection entity is required to protect the traffic that is being carried over the working entity, the extra traffic is preempted. A shared risk group (SRG) is a set of network elements that are collectively impacted by a specific fault or fault type. For example, a shared risk link group (SRLG) is the union of all the links on those fibers that are routed in the same physical conduit in a fiber-span network. This concept includes, besides shared conduit, other types of compromise such as shared fiber cable, shared right of way, shared optical ring, shared office without power sharing, etc. The span of an SRG, such as the length of the sharing for compromised outside plant, needs to be considered on a per fault basis. The concept of SRG can be extended to represent a "risk domain" and its associated capabilities and summarization for traffic engineering purposes. See [7] for further discussion. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Normalization is the sequence of events and actions taken by a network that returns the network to the preferred state upon completing repair of a failure. This could include the switching or rerouting of affected traffic to the original repaired working entities or new routes. Revertive mode refers to the case where traffic is automatically returned to a repaired working entity (also called switch back). Recovery is the sequence of events and actions taken by a network after the detection of a failure to maintain the required performance level for existing services (e.g., according to service level agreements) and to allow normalization of the network. The actions include notification of the failure followed by two parallel processes: (1) a repair process with fault isolation and repair of the failed components, and (2) a reconfiguration process using survivability mechanisms to maintain service continuity. In protection, reconfiguration involves switching the affected traffic from a working entity to a protection entity. In restoration, reconfiguration involves path selection and rerouting for the affected traffic. Revertive mode is a procedure in which revertive action, i.e., switch back from the protection entity to the working entity, is taken once the failed working entity has been repaired. In non-revertive mode, such action is not taken. To minimize service interruption, switch- back in revertive mode should be performed at a time when there is the least impact on the traffic concerned, or by using the make- before-break concept. Non-revertive mode is the case where there is no preferred path or it may be desirable to minimize further disruption of the service brought on by a revertive switching operation. A switch-back to the original working path is not desired or not possible since the original path may no longer exist after the occurrence of a fault on that path. 2.2.3 Survivability Techniques Protection, also called protection switching, is a survivability technique based on predetermined failure recovery: as the working entity is established, a protection entity is also established. Protection techniques can be implemented by several architectures: 1+1, 1:1, 1:n, and m:n. In the context of SDH/SONET, they are referred to as Automatic Protection Switching (APS). In the 1+1 protection architecture, a protection entity is dedicated to each working entity. The dual-feed mechanism is used whereby the working entity is permanently bridged onto the protection entity at Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 the source of the protected domain. In normal operation mode, identical traffic is transmitted simultaneously on both the working and protection entities. At the other end (sink) of the protected domain, both feeds are monitored for alarms and maintenance signals. A selection between the working and protection entity is made based on some predetermined criteria, such as the transmission performance requirements or defect indication. In the 1:1 protection architecture, a protection entity is also dedicated to each working entity. The protected traffic is normally transmitted by the working entity. When the working entity fails, the protected traffic is switched to the protection entity. The two ends of the protected domain must signal detection of the fault and initiate the switchover. In the 1:n protection architecture, a dedicated protection entity is shared by n working entities. In this case, not all of the affected traffic may be protected. The m:n architecture is a generalization of the 1:n architecture. Typically m <= n, where m dedicated protection entities are shared by n working entities. Restoration, also referred to as recovery by rerouting [4], is a survivability technique that establishes new paths or path segments on demand, for restoring affected traffic after the occurrence of a fault. The resources in these alternate paths are the currently unassigned (unreserved) resources in the same layer. Preemption of extra traffic may also be used if spare resources are not available to carry the higher-priority protected traffic. As initiated by detection of a fault on the working path, the selection of a recovery path may be based on preplanned configurations, network routing policies, or current network status such as network topology and fault information. Signaling is used for establishing the new paths to bypass the fault. Thus, restoration involves a path selection process followed by rerouting of the affected traffic from the working entity to the recovery entity. 2.2.4 Survivability Performance Protection switch time is the time interval from the occurrence of a network fault until the completion of the protection-switching operations. It includes the detection time necessary to initiate the protection switch, any hold-off time to allow for the interworking of protection schemes, and the switch completion time. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Restoration time is the time interval from the occurrence of a network fault to the instant when the affected traffic is either completely restored, or until spare resources are exhausted, and/or no more extra traffic exists that can be preempted to make room. Restoration priority is a method of giving preference to protect higher-priority traffic ahead of lower-priority traffic. Its use is to help determine the order of restoring traffic after a failure has occurred. The purpose is to differentiate service restoration time as well as to control access to available spare capacity for different classes of traffic. Preemption priority is a method of determining which traffic can be disconnected in the event that not all traffic with a higher restoration priority is restored after the occurrence of a failure. 2.3 Survivability Mechanisms: Comparison In a survivable network design, spare capacity and diversity must be built into the network from the beginning to support some degree of self-healing whenever failures occur. A common strategy is to associate each working entity with a protection entity having either dedicated resources or shared resources that are pre-reserved or reserved-on-demand. According to the methods of setting up a protection entity, different approaches to providing survivability can be classified. Generally, protection techniques are based on having a dedicated protection entity set up prior to failure. Such is not the case in restoration techniques, which mainly rely on the use of spare capacity in the network. Hence, in terms of trade-offs, protection techniques usually offer fast recovery from failure with enhanced availability, while restoration techniques usually achieve better resource utilization. A 1+1 protection architecture is rather expensive since resource duplication is required for the working and protection entities. It is generally used for specific services that need a very high availability. A 1:1 architecture is inherently slower in recovering from failure than a 1+1 architecture since communication between both ends of the protection domain is required to perform the switch-over operation. An advantage is that the protection entity can optionally be used to carry low-priority extra traffic in normal operation, if traffic preemption is allowed. Packet networks can pre-establish a protection path for later use with pre-planned but not pre-reserved capacity. That is, if no packets are sent onto a protection path, Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 then no bandwidth is consumed. This is not the case in transmission networks like optical or TDM where path establishment and resource reservation cannot be decoupled. In the 1:n protection architecture, traffic is normally sent on the working entities. When multiple working entities have failed simultaneously, only one of them can be restored by the common protection entity. This contention could be resolved by assigning a different preemptive priority to each working entity. As in the 1:1 case, the protection entity can optionally be used to carry preemptable traffic in normal operation. While the m:n architecture can improve system availability with small cost increases, it has rarely been implemented or standardized. When compared with protection mechanisms, restoration mechanisms are generally more frugal as no resources are committed until after the fault occurs and the location of the fault is known. However, restoration mechanisms are inherently slower, since more must be done following the detection of a fault. Also, the time it takes for the dynamic selection and establishment of alternate paths may vary, depending on the amount of traffic and connections to be restored, and is influenced by the network topology, technology employed, and the type and severity of the fault. As a result, restoration time tends to be more variable than the protection switch time needed with pre-selected protection entities. Hence, in using restoration mechanisms, it is essential to use restoration priority to ensure that service objectives are met cost-effectively. Once the network routing algorithms have converged after a fault, it may be preferable in some cases, to reoptimize the network by performing a reroute based on the current state of the network and network policies. 3. Survivability 3.1 Scope Interoperable approaches to network survivability were determined to be an immediate requirement in packet networks as well as in SDH/SONET framed TDM networks. Not as pressing at this time were techniques that would cover all-optical networks (e.g., where framing is unknown), as the control of these networks in a multi-vendor environment appeared to have some other hurdles to first deal with. Also, not of immediate interest were approaches to coordinate or explicitly communicate survivability mechanisms across network layers (such as from a TDM or optical network to/from an IP network). However, a capability should be provided for a network operator to Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 perform fault notification and to control the operation of survivability mechanisms among different layers. This may require the development of corresponding OAM functionality. However, such issues and those related to OAM are currently outside the scope of this document. (For proposed MPLS OAM requirements, see [8, 9]). The initial scope is to address only "backhoe failures" in the inter-office connections of a service provider network. A link connection in the router layer is typically comprised of multiple spans in the lower layers. Therefore, the types of network failures that cause a recovery to be performed include link/span failures. However, linecard and node failures may not need to be treated any differently than their respective link/span failures, as a router failure may be represented as a set of simultaneous link failures. Depending on the actual network configuration, drop-side interface (e.g., between a customer and an access router, or between a router and an optical cross-connect) may be considered either inter-domain or inter-layer. Another inter-domain scenario is the use of intra- office links for interconnecting a metro network and a core network, with both networks being administered by the same service provider. Failures at such interfaces may be similarly protected by the mechanisms of this section. Other more complex failure mechanisms such as systematic control- plane failure, configuration error, or breach of security are not within the scope of the survivability mechanisms discussed in this document. Network impairment such as congestion that results in lower throughput are also not covered. 3.2 Required initial set of survivability mechanisms 3.2.1 1:1 Path Protection with Pre-Established Capacity In this protection mode, the head end of a working connection establishes a protection connection to the destination. There should be the ability to maintain relative restoration priorities between working and protection connections, as well as between different classes of protection connections. In normal operation, traffic is only sent on the working connection, though the ability to signal that traffic will be sent on both connections (1+1 Path for signaling purposes) would be valuable in non-packet networks. Some distinction between working and protection connections is likely, either through explicit objects, or preferably through implicit methods such as general classes or priorities. Head ends need the ability to create connections that are as failure disjoint as possible from each other. This requires SRG information Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 that can be generally assigned to either nodes or links and propagated through the control or management plane. In this mechanism, capacity in the protection connection is pre-established, however it should be capable of carrying preemptable extra traffic in non-packet networks. When protection capacity is called into service during recovery, there should be the ability to promote the protection connection to working status (for non-revertive mode operation) with some form of make-before-break capability. 3.2.2 1:1 Path Protection with Pre-Planned Capacity Similar to the above 1:1 protection with pre-established capacity, the protection connection in this case is also pre-signaled. The difference is in the way protection capacity is assigned. With pre- planned capacity, the mechanism supports the ability for the protection capacity to be shared, or "double-booked". Operators need the ability to provision different amounts of protection capacity according to expected failure modes and service level agreements. Thus, an operator may wish to provision sufficient restoration capacity to handle a single failure affecting all connections in an SRG, or may wish to provision less or more restoration capacity. Mechanisms should be provided to allow restoration capacity on each link to be shared by SRG-disjoint failures. In a sense, this is 1:1 from a path perspective; however, the protection capacity in the network (on a link by link basis) is shared in a 1:n fashion, e.g., see the proposals in [10, 11]. If capacity is planned but not allocated, some form of signaling could be required before traffic may be sent on protection connections, especially in TDM networks. The use of this approach improves network resource utilization, but may require more careful planning. So, initial deployment might be based on 1:1 path protection with pre-established capacity and the local restoration mechanism to be described next. 3.2.3 Local Restoration Due to the time impact of signal propagation, dynamic recovery of an entire path may not meet the service requirements of some networks. The solution to this is to restore connectivity of the link or span in immediate proximity to the fault, e.g., see the proposals in [12, 13]. At a minimum, this approach should be able to protect against connectivity-type SRGs, though protecting against node-based SRGs might be worthwhile. Also, this approach is applicable to support restoration on the inter-domain and inter-layer interconnection scenarios using intra-office links as described in the Scope Section. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Head end systems must have some control as to whether their connections are candidates for or excluded from local restoration. For example, best-effort and preemptable traffic may be excluded from local restoration; they only get restored if there is bandwidth available. This type of control may require the definition of an object in signaling. Since local restoration may be suboptimal, a means for head end systems to later perform path-level re-grooming must be supported for this approach. 3.2.4 Path Restoration In this approach, connections that are impacted by a fault are rerouted by the originating network element upon notification of connection failure. Such a source-based approach is efficient for network resources, but typically takes longer to accomplish restoration. It does not involve any new mechanisms. It merely is a mention of another common approach to protecting against faults in a network. 3.3 Applications Supported With service continuity under failure as a goal, a network is "survivable" if, in the face of a network failure, connectivity is interrupted for a "brief" period and then recovered before the network failure ends. The length of this interrupted period is dependent upon the application supported. Here are some typical applications and considerations that drive the requirements for an acceptable protection switch time or restoration time: - Best-effort data: recovery of network connectivity by rerouting at the IP layer would be sufficient - Premium data service: need to meet TCP timeout or application protocol timer requirements - Voice: call cutoff is in the range of 140 msec to 2 sec (the time that a person waits after interruption of the speech path before hanging up or the time that a telephone switch will disconnect a call) - Other real-time service (e.g., streaming, fax) where an interruption would cause the session to terminate - Mission-critical applications that cannot tolerate even brief interruptions, for example, real-time financial transactions Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 3.4 Timing Bounds for Survivability Mechanisms The approach to picking the types of survivability mechanisms recommended was to consider a spectrum of mechanisms that can be used to protect traffic with varying characteristics of survivability and speed of protection/restoration, and then attempt to select a few general points that provide some coverage across that spectrum. The focus of this work is to provide requirements to which a small set of detailed proposals may be developed, allowing the operator some (limited) flexibility in approaches to meeting their design goals in engineering multi-vendor networks. Requirements of different applications as listed in the previous sub-section were discussed generally, however none on the team would likely attest to the scientific merit of the ability of the timing bounds below to meet any specific application's needs. A few assumptions include: 1. Approaches in which protection switch without propagation of information are likely to be faster than those that do require some form of fault notification to some or all elements in a network. 2. Approaches that require some form of signaling after a fault will also likely suffer some timing impact. Proposed timing bounds for different survivability mechanisms are as follows (all bounds are exclusive of signal propagation): 1:1 path protection with pre-established capacity: 100-500 ms 1:1 path protection with pre-planned capacity: 100-750 ms Local restoration: 50 ms Path restoration: 1-5 seconds To ensure that the service requirements for different applications can be met within the above timing bounds, restoration priority must be implemented to determine the order in which connections are restored (to minimize service restoration time as well as to gain access to available spare capacity on the best paths). For example, mission critical applications may require high restoration priority. At the fiber layer, instead of specific applications, it may be possible that priority be given to certain classifications of customers with their traffic types enclosed within the customer aggregate. Preemption priority should only be used in the event that not all connections can be restored, in which case connections with lower preemption priority should be released. Depending on a service provider's strategy in provisioning network resources for backup, preemption may or may not be needed in the network. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 3.5 Coordination Among Layers A common design goal for networks with multiple technological layers is to provide the desired level of service in the most cost-effective manner. Multilayer survivability may allow the optimization of spare resources through the improvement of resource utilization by sharing spare capacity across different layers, though further investigations are needed. Coordination during recovery among different network layers (e.g., IP, SDH/SONET, optical layer) might necessitate development of vertical hierarchy. The benefits of providing survivability mechanisms at multiple layers, and the optimization of the overall approach, must be weighed with the associated cost and service impacts. A default coordination mechanism for inter-layer interaction could be the use of nested timers and current SDH/SONET fault monitoring, as has been done traditionally for backward compatibility. Thus, when lower-layer recovery happens in a longer time period than higher- layer recovery, a hold-off timer is utilized to avoid contention between the different single-layer survivability schemes. In other words, multilayer interaction is addressed by having successively higher multiplexing levels operate at a protection/restoration time scale greater than the next lowest layer. This can impact the overall time to recover service. For example, if SDH/SONET protection switching is used, MPLS recovery timers must wait until SDH/SONET has had time to switch. Setting such timers involves a tradeoff between rapid recovery and creation of a race condition where multiple layers are responding to the same fault, potentially allocating resources in an inefficient manner. In other configurations where the lower layer does not have a restoration capability or is not expected to protect, say an unprotected SDH/SONET linear circuit, then there must be a mechanism for the lower layer to trigger the higher layer to take recovery actions immediately. This difference in network configuration means that implementations must allow for adjustment of hold-off timer values and/or a means for a lower layer to immediately indicate to a higher layer that a fault has occurred so that the higher layer can take restoration or protection actions. Furthermore, faults at higher layers should not trigger restoration or protection actions at lower layers [3, 4]. It was felt that the current approach to coordination of survivability approaches currently did not have significant operational shortfalls. These approaches include protecting traffic solely at one layer (e.g., at the IP layer over linear WDM, or at the SDH/SONET layer). Where survivability mechanisms might be deployed Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 at several layers, such as when a routed network rides a SDH/SONET protected network, it was felt that current coordination approaches were sufficient in many cases. One exception is the hold-off of MPLS recovery until the completion of SDH/SONET protection switching as described above. This limits the recovery time of fast MPLS restoration. Also, by design, the operations and mechanisms within a given layer tend to be invisible to other layers. 3.6 Evolution Toward IP Over Optical As more pressing requirements for survivability and horizontal hierarchy for edge-to-edge signaling are met with technical proposals, it is believed that the benefits of merging (in some manner) the control planes of multiple layers will be outlined. When these benefits are self-evident, it would then seem to be the right time to review whether vertical hierarchy mechanisms are needed, and what the requirements might be. For example, a future requirement might be to provide a better match between the recovery requirements of IP networks with the recovery capability of optical transport. One such proposal is described in [14]. 4. Hierarchy Requirements Efforts in the area of network hierarchy should focus on mechanisms that would allow more scalable edge-to-edge signaling, or signaling across networks with existing network hierarchy (such as multi-area OSPF). This appears to be a more urgent need than mechanisms that might be needed to interconnect networks at different layers. 4.1 Historical Context One reason for horizontal hierarchy is functionality (e.g., metro versus backbone). Geographic "islands" or partitions reduce the need for interoperability and make administration and operations less complex. Using a simpler, more interoperable, survivability scheme at metro/backbone boundaries is natural for many provider network architectures. In transmission networks, creating geographic islands of different vendor equipment has been done for a long time because multi-vendor interoperability has been difficult to achieve. Traditionally, providers have to coordinate the equipment on either end of a "connection," and making this interoperable reduces complexity. A provider should be able to concatenate survivability mechanisms in order to provide a "protected link" to the next higher level. Think of SDH/SONET rings connecting to TDM DXCs with 1+1 line-layer protection between the ADM and the DXC port. The TDM connection, e.g., a DS3, is protected but usually all equipment on each SDH/SONET ring is from a single vendor. The DXC cross connections are controlled by the provider and the ports are Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 physically protected resulting in a highly available design. Thus, concatenation of survivability approaches can be used to cascade across a horizontal hierarchy. While not perfect, it is workable in the near to mid-term until multi-vendor interoperability is achieved. While the problems associated with multi-vendor interoperability may necessitate horizontal hierarchy as a practical matter in the near to mid-term (at least this has been the case in TDM networks), there should not be a technical reason for it in the standards developed by the IETF for core networks, or even most access networks. Establishing interoperability of survivability mechanisms between multi-vendor equipment in core IP networks is urgently required to enable adoption of IP as a viable core transport technology and to facilitate the traffic engineering of future multi-service IP networks [3]. Some of the largest service provider networks currently run a single area/level IGP. Some service providers, as well as many large enterprise networks, run multi-area Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) to gain increases in scalability. Often, this was from an original design, so it is difficult to say if the network truly required the hierarchy to reach its current size. Some proposals on improved mechanisms to address network hierarchy have been suggested [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. This document aims to provide the concrete requirements so that these and other proposals can first aim to meet some limited objectives. 4.2 Applications for Horizontal Hierarchy A primary driver for intra-domain horizontal hierarchy is signaling capabilities in the context of edge-to-edge VPNs, potentially across traffic-engineered data networks. There are a number of different approaches to layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs and they are currently being addressed by different emerging protocols in the provider-provisioned VPNs (e.g., virtual routers) and Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) efforts based on either MPLS and/or IP tunnels. These may or may not need explicit signaling from edge to edge, but it is a common perception that in order to meet SLAs, some form of edge-to-edge signaling may be required. With a large number of edges (N), scalability is concerned with avoiding the O(N^2) properties of edge-to-edge signaling. However, the main issue here is not with the scalability of large amounts of signaling, such as in O(N^2) meshes with a "connection" between every edge-pair. This is because, even if establishing and maintaining connections is feasible in a large network, there might be an impact on core survivability mechanisms which would cause Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 protection/restoration times to grow with N^2, which would be undesirable. While some value of N may be inevitable, approaches to reduce N (e.g. to pull in from the edge to aggregation points) might be of value. Thus, most service providers feel that O(N^2) meshes are not necessary for VPNs, and that the number of tunnels to support VPNs would be within the scalability bounds of current protocols and implementations. That may be the case, as there is currently a lack of ability to signal MPLS tunnels from edge to edge across IGP hierarchy, such as OSPF areas. This may require the development of signaling standards that support dynamic establishment and potentially the restoration of LSPs across a 2-level IGP hierarchy. For routing scalability, especially in data applications, a major concern is the amount of processing/state that is required in the variety of network elements. If some nodes might not be able to communicate and process the state of every other node, it might be preferable to limit the information. There is one school of thought that says that the amount of information contained by a horizontal barrier should be significant, and that impacts this might have on optimality in route selection and ability to provide global survivability are accepted tradeoffs. 4.3 Horizontal Hierarchy Requirements Mechanisms are required to allow for edge-to-edge signaling of connections through a network. One network scenario includes medium to large networks that currently have hierarchical interior routing such as multi-area OSPF or multi-level Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS). The primary context of this is edge- to-edge signaling, which is thought to be required to assure the SLAs for the layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs that are being carried across the network. Another possible context would be edge-to-edge signaling in TDM SDH/SONET networks with IP control, where metro and core networks again might be in a hierarchical interior routing domain. To support edge-to-edge signaling in the above network scenarios within the framework of existing horizontal hierarchies, current traffic engineering (TE) methods [20, 6] may need to be extended. Requirements for multi-area TE need to be developed to provide guidance for any necessary protocol extensions. 5. Survivability and Hierarchy When horizontal hierarchy exists in a network technology layer, a question arises as to how survivability can be provided along a connection that crosses hierarchical boundaries. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 In designing protocols to meet the requirements of hierarchy, an approach to consider is that boundaries are either clean, or are of minimal value. However, the concept of network elements that participate on both sides of a boundary might be a consideration (e.g., OSPF ABRs). That would allow for devices on either side to take an intra-area approach within their region of knowledge, and for the ABR to do this in both areas, and splice the two protected connections together at a common point (granted it is a common point of failure now). If the limitations of this approach start to appear in operational settings, then perhaps it would be time to start thinking about route-servers and signaling propagated directives. However, one initial approach might be to signal through a common border router, and to consider the service as protected as it consists of a concatenated set of connections which are each protected within their area. Another approach might be to have a least common denominator mechanism at the boundary, e.g., 1+1 port protection. There should also be some standardized means for a survivability scheme on one side of such a boundary to communicate with the scheme on the other side regarding the success or failure of the recovery action. For example, if a part of a "connection" is down on one side of such a boundary, there is no need for the other side to recover from failures. In summary, at this time, approaches as described above that allow concatenation of survivability schemes across hierarchical boundaries seem sufficient. 6. Security Considerations The set of SRGs that are defined for a network under a common administrative control and the corresponding assignment of these SRGs to nodes and links within the administrative control is sensitive information and needs to be protected. An SRG is an acknowledgement that nodes and links that belong to an SRG are susceptible to a common threat. An adversary with access to information contained in an SRG could use that information to design an attack, determine the scope of damage caused by the attack and, therefore, be used to maximize the effect of an attack. The label used to refer to a particular SRG must allow for an encoding such that sensitive information such as physical location, function, purpose, customer, fault type, etc. is not readily discernable by unauthorized users. SRG information that is propagated through the control and management plane should allow for an encryption mechanism. An example of an approach would be to use IPSEC [21] on all packets carrying SRG information. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 7. References [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] K. Owens, V. Sharma, and M. Oommen, "Network Survivability Considerations for Traffic Engineered IP Networks", Work in Progress. [4] V. Sharma, B. Crane, S. Makam, K. Owens, C. Huang, F. Hellstrand, J. Weil, L. Andersson, B. Jamoussi, B. Cain, S. Civanlar, and A. Chiu, "Framework for MPLS-based Recovery", Work in Progress. [5] M. Thorup, "Fortifying OSPF/ISIS Against Link Failure", http://www.research.att.com/~mthorup/PAPERS/lf_ospf.ps [6] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I. and X. Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272, May 2002. [7] S. Dharanikota, R. Jain, D. Papadimitriou, R. Hartani, G. Bernstein, V. Sharma, C. Brownmiller, Y. Xue, and J. Strand, "Inter-domain routing with Shared Risk Groups", Work in Progress. [8] N. Harrison, P. Willis, S. Davari, E. Cuevas, B. Mack-Crane, E. Franze, H. Ohta, T. So, S. Goldfless, and F. Chen, "Requirements for OAM in MPLS Networks," Work in Progress. [9] D. Allan and M. Azad, "A Framework for MPLS User Plane OAM," Work in Progress. [10] S. Kini, M. Kodialam, T.V. Lakshman, S. Sengupta, and C. Villamizar, "Shared Backup Label Switched Path Restoration," Work in Progress. [11] G. Li, C. Kalmanek, J. Yates, G. Bernstein, F. Liaw, and V. Sharma, "RSVP-TE Extensions For Shared-Mesh Restoration in Transport Networks", Work in Progress. [12] P. Pan (Editor), D.H. Gan, G. Swallow, J. Vasseur, D. Cooper, A. Atlas, and M. Jork, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", Work in Progress. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 [13] A. Atlas, C. Villamizar, and C. Litvanyi, "MPLS RSVP-TE Interoperability for Local Protection/Fast Reroute", Work in Progress. [14] A. Chiu and J. Strand, "Joint IP/Optical Layer Restoration after a Router Failure", Proc. OFC'2001, Anaheim, CA, March 2001. [15] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Multi-area MPLS Traffic Engineering", Work in Progress. [16] G. Ash, et. al., "Requirements for Multi-Area TE", Work in Progress. [17] A. Iwata, N. Fujita, G.R. Ash, and A. Farrel, "Crankback Routing Extensions for MPLS Signaling", Work in Progress. [18] C-Y Lee, A. Celer, N. Gammage, S. Ghanti, G. Ash, "Distributed Route Exchangers", Work in Progress. [19] C-Y Lee and S. Ghanti, "Path Request and Path Reply Message", Work in Progress. [20] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M. and J. McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702, September 1999. [21] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. 8. Acknowledgments A lot of the direction taken in this document, and by the team in its initial effort was steered by the insightful questions provided by Bala Rajagoplan, Greg Bernstein, Yangguang Xu, and Avri Doria. The set of questions is attached as Appendix A in this document. After the release of the first draft, a number of comments were received. Thanks to the inputs from Jerry Ash, Sudheer Dharanikota, Chuck Kalmanek, Dan Koller, Lyndon Ong, Steve Plote, and Yong Xue. 9. Contributing Authors Jim Boyle (PDNets), Rob Coltun (Movaz), Tim Griffin (AT&T), Ed Kern, Tom Reddington (Lucent) and Malin Carlzon. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Appendix A: Questions used to help develop requirements A. Definitions 1. In determining the specific requirements, the design team should precisely define the concepts "survivability", "restoration", "protection", "protection switching", "recovery", "re-routing" etc. and their relations. This would enable the requirements doc to describe precisely which of these will be addressed. In the following, the term "restoration" is used to indicate the broad set of policies and mechanisms used to ensure survivability. B. Network types and protection modes 1. What is the scope of the requirements with regard to the types of networks covered? Specifically, are the following in scope: Restoration of connections in mesh optical networks (opaque or transparent) Restoration of connections in hybrid mesh-ring networks Restoration of LSPs in MPLS networks (composed of LSRs overlaid on a transport network, e.g., optical) Any other types of networks? Is commonality of approach, or optimization of approach more important? 2. What are the requirements with regard to the protection modes to be supported in each network type covered? (Examples of protection modes include 1+1, M:N, shared mesh, UPSR, BLSR, newly defined modes such as P-cycles, etc.) 3. What are the requirements on local span (i.e., link by link) protection and end-to-end protection, and the interaction between them? E.g.: what should be the granularity of connections for each type (single connection, bundle of connections, etc). C. Hierarchy 1. Vertical (between two network layers): What are the requirements for the interaction between restoration procedures across two network layers, when these features are offered in both layers? (Example, MPLS network realized over pt- to-pt optical connections.) Under such a case, (a) Are there any criteria to choose which layer should provide protection? Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 (b) If both layers provide survivability features, what are the requirements to coordinate these mechanisms? (c) How is lack of current functionality of cross-layer coordination currently hampering operations? (d) Would the benefits be worth additional complexity associated with routing isolation (e.g. VPN, areas), security, address isolation and policy / authentication processes? 2. Horizontal (between two areas or administrative subdivisions within the same network layer): (a) What are the criteria that trigger the creation of protocol or administrative boundaries pertaining to restoration? (e.g., scalability? multi-vendor interoperability? what are the practical issues?) multi-provider? Should multi-vendor necessitate hierarchical separation? When such boundaries are defined: (b) What are the requirements on how protection/restoration is performed end-to-end across such boundaries? (c) If different restoration mechanisms are implemented on two sides of a boundary, what are the requirements on their interaction? What is the primary driver of horizontal hierarchy? (select one) - functionality (e.g. metro -v- backbone) - routing scalability - signaling scalability - current network architecture, trying to layer on TE on top of an already hierarchical network architecture - routing and signalling For signalling scalability, is it - manageability - processing/state of network - edge-to-edge N^2 type issue For routing scalability, is it - processing/state of network - are you flat and want to go hierarchical - or already hierarchical? - data or TDM application? Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 D. Policy 1. What are the requirements for policy support during protection/restoration, e.g., restoration priority, preemption, etc. E. Signaling Mechanisms 1. What are the requirements on the signaling transport mechanism (e.g., in-band over SDH/SONET overhead bytes, out-of-band over an IP network, etc.) used to communicate restoration protocol messages between network elements? What are the bandwidth and other requirements on the signaling channels? 2. What are the requirements on fault detection/localization mechanisms (which is the prelude to performing restoration procedures) in the case of opaque and transparent optical networks? What are the requirements in the case of MPLS restoration? 3. What are the requirements on signaling protocols to be used in restoration procedures (e.g., high priority processing, security, etc)? 4. Are there any requirements on the operation of restoration protocols? F. Quantitative 1. What are the quantitative requirements (e.g., latency) for completing restoration under different protection modes (for both local and end-to-end protection)? G. Management 1. What information should be measured/maintained by the control plane at each network element pertaining to restoration events? 2. What are the requirements for the correlation between control plane and data plane failures from the restoration point of view? Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Editors' Addresses Wai Sum Lai AT&T 200 Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Phone: +1 732-420-3712 EMail: email@example.com Dave McDysan WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Pkwy Ashburn, VA 20147, USA EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 3386 Hierarchy & Multilayer Survivability November 2002 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Lai, et. al. Informational [Page 27]


text:
If you're new to a town, or looking to change your life by bringing new people into it, there's a website that can really help your struggle. Located at http://www.meetin.org, MettIn is a website that provides ample opportunity for social exchanges completely free of charge. Completely staffed by volunteers, there are separate MeetIn pages for a host of cities across the USA and abroad. Members can communicate with each other, post events, and RSVP forevents that they plan on attending. Every bit of the site is composed by those who choose to be actively social in the group, and it truly achieves its goals of providing a great place for people to get to know each other and have a good time.
Without the pressures of some of the 'singles' sites out there, members in MeetIn come from all walks of life, from those who are looking for love to those that are just looking to have a good time experiencing some of the funnest activities their home town has to offer. The age range of the participants on the site varies widely and you're quite likely to find someone that you can really relate to if you dedicate even a minute amount of time to attending the site's events. On the site, you can find multiple events listed with several activities being planned per week by the site's most dedicated volunteers. You can forge lifelong friendships and create memories that you'll cherish for the rest of your days simply by attending some of the events and seeing exactly what life has to offer. Also, you'll find yourself talking to people from different walks of life that you would never normally have the opportunity to encounter.
All in all, MeetIn proves to be a very rewarding social service for those who choose to harness it. In addition to being able to host or attendevents in your city, many MeetIn members find themselves making trips to attendeventswith other MeetIn groups across the country. It can be very welcoming to have a host of people that are there for you when you're away from home – and the hospitable members of other groups are often more than happy to help accommodate your travels. Check it out today!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A friend of mine was hosting an 18th c. themed birthday party this weekend, and I decided at the last minute that I wanted a new dress that lightweight enough to be comfortable in our lingering summer heat. It's still in the high 90's here in Texas, so I thought a new chemise gown would be well worth a little detour from my other sewing and blogging plans. I also couldn't resist joining my friends, who were also wearing chemises to the party. I'm such a sucker for a theme!
I used the same basic pattern that I created for my black chemise a few years ago, but this time I made elbow length sleeves and only had 2 drawstrings on the bodice instead of 3. Chemise gowns with fitted backs are very easy to construct, and I think they are a lot less fiddly than the kind that are gathered all the way around. I took a picture while I was getting dressed to give you a peek at the construction. It's really just a basic round gown with a gathered section attached over the front of the bodice, and this panel is stitched down on to the bodice at the sides and tied in the center with ribbons.


text:
KUKA positioners offer you the following advantages:
- Highly dynamic drives with maximum torque ensure extremely short cycle times.
- The use of proven robotic components, such as gear units and motors, ensures high availability and reliability as well as consistently high quality, even after prolonged use.
- Thanks to the control technology from KUKA, the positioners are easy to program and to operate.
- Utmost precision and positioning accuracy ensure the highest manufacturing and production quality.
- KUKA optionally offers energy supply systems for all positioners. These systems guarantee easy, quick and safe integration as well as a long service life.
- It is possible to perform full and simple simulations by means of KUKA.Sim.


text:
On the Symfony Finland blog there's a new post showing you how to serve PHP over HTTP/2 with HHVM and H2O. H2O describes itself as a "new generation HTTP server providing quicker response to users when compared to older generation of web servers".
This article is not about improvements made in HTTP/2 - as there are plenty of locations for you to read up on the internals. It's a hands on article to get started using HTTP/2 today with popular tools such as Symfony, WordPress and Drupal with the HHVM PHP runtime from Facebook. You can just as well use PHP-FPM.
They start with a bit of a look at the current state of PHP and HTTP/2 on the various major web server types. H2O, while younger, natively supports HTTP/2, he does offer the caveat that "waiting won't kill you". Despite this, they go on to show you how to set up the PHP+H2O+HHVM combination complete with configuration examples and what to look for in the logs to ensure HTTP/2 functionality.


text:
Gooseneck Trailer For Sale |
Gatormade Gooseneck Trailers |
KY Gooseneck Trailer For Sale
Bullitt County, Kentucky
Additional Locations Available To Post Your Gooseneck Trailer: goosenecktrailer.trade
Spring Of 2018: Kentucky Gooseneck Trailers Trading Post
Post Photos Of Your Gooseneck Trailer For Sale in Bullitt County, Kentucky --For Free!
If you have a gooseneck trailer you would like to sell in the state of Kentucky --bookmark this site. Very soon, goosenecktrailer.trade will be the very best place to post your gooseneck trailer for sale. The Kentucky gooseneck trailer trading post site is almost completed. We will also provide you with your very own URL so that you can market your gooseneck trailer. All of this will be done Free Of Any Charge!
Yes there is a catch: This is a free posting service for Kentucky residents. If you do not live or do business in the state of Kentucky --there are plenty of other places to sell your gooseneck trailer!
For all of our "local friends" in Kentucky --this is a FREE posting service (gooseneck trailers only, please) provided by your "Gooseneck Trailer Making Friends" at gatormadeusa
Watch this space for more details!
Gooseneck Trailer Sales Kentucky


text:
Architectural Surfaces | Satin
At Lavish, we've cultivated a passion for excellence through persistent e orts. Our approach to business involves thoroughly studying the market to design products that align with our values - innovation, creativity, and perfection! This, coupled with our commitment to a quality culture and expert craftsmanship, sets us apart as a reputed ceramic tile manufacturer and exporter. Our strict quality control process and certifications, such as ISO 9001:2015, CE, and UK CA, attest to our dedication to international standards. Additionally, constant R&D investment and a dedicated team enable us to launch new product lines while o ering exceptional customer support.
Today, we serve over 50 countries worldwide. Despite the challenges of entering India's established tile industry, we have established our brand as a trusted source of high-quality ceramic wall and floor tiles, double charge vitrified tiles, polished vitrified tiles, glazed vitrified tiles, and digital tiles. Craftsmanship is a hallmark of our group, and we position ourselves as a team of skilled artisans rather than simply tile manufacturers. The unique designs, colors, sizes, & fnishes of our surfaces set us apart, o ering a fresh and distinctive alternative in an otherwise uniform market.
Craftsmanship is also at the heart of our brand! In a way, we don't consider ourselves manufacturers but we see ourselves as a team of skilled artisans who take great care in crafting beautiful surfaces that are unmatched, unparalleled, and unrivaled! The uniqueness of our product is reflected in our designs, colors, sizes, and finishes which are exclusive to us and dierent by all means! In short, "We are a breath of fresh air in a sea of sameness"
60x60 | 60x120 | 120x120 | 80x160 | 80x80 | 30x60cm
20x120 | 30x120cm
60x60 | 60x120cm
60x60 | 60x90 | 60x120cm
That which is unique is always rare and special, so is with the finesse of Lavish tiles. Lavish is synonymous with excellent quality tiles that define the beauty of a well tiled space. One of the largest manufacturer and exporter of ceramic tiles, wall tiles and floor tiles, double charge vitrified tiles, polished glazed vitrified tiles, glazed vitrified tiles and digital tiles, Lavish is famous for adding that sense of grandeur and splendor through sheer product quality.


text:
A great trip for families, youth groups and beginning birders.
Don't forget to stop by the Cosumnes River Preserve and check out "Ducks In Scopes", where preserve docents have a row of scopes set up, some set lower to accommodate children. They'll focus on giving you good views of the many colorful ducks and geese, as well as some of the more interesting shorebirds such as Black-necked Stilts and Common Snipe. A table display features "Duck Soup", dishes of water dipped from the pond full of sand fleas, dragonfly nymphs, and other squiggly things that provide the protein the birds are feeding on. A microscope and hand lens provide close-up looks. The Preserve is a quick drive from Sacramento – south on I-5 to Twin Cities Road; left (east) on Twin Cities for 1 mile; then right (south) on Franklin Blvd. The viewing area is in the first parking lot on your right as you drive into the preserve.


text:
Discover the ultimate shopping destination for everything related to your Jeep! At Crossroad Mods, we are dedicated to providing you with the best prices on the latest and greatest Jeep products. Whether you're seeking to upgrade your vehicle or add a personal touch, we have you covered.
We take the hassle out of shopping for Jeep parts and accessories, so you can spend your time enjoying your vehicle. Our inventory includes a wide range of Jeep parts, as well as a vast selection of Jeep accessories like stylish clothing, eye-catching decals, durable tire covers, and much more.
Enjoy a seamless shopping experience with the peace of mind that comes with our partnership with Amazon. All orders are protected by Amazon's A to Z Guarantee, ensuring that your purchase is protected. As a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, we are proud to offer a reliable and secure shopping experience. Shop now and give your Jeep the upgrade it deserves!
Get ready to upgrade your Jeep with ease and affordability! At Crossroad Mods, we maintain an extensive inventory of high-quality aftermarket Jeep parts, giving you the opportunity to buy parts at unbeatable prices compared to our competitors. We take pride in providing our customers with top-notch products at extremely discounted prices.
From adding a lift to bigger tires, protecting your vehicle to upgrading your audio system, we've got you covered. Our vast collection of Jeep parts and accessories is suitable for any make and model Jeep, so you can customize your vehicle to fit your personal style and needs.
Say goodbye to the hassle of searching for the lowest prices on Jeep parts. With so many websites claiming to have the best prices, it can be tough to know where to turn. But at Crossroad Mods, we have the proof: our prices truly are the lowest on the web. Not only that, but we offer a unique selection of aftermarket Jeep parts that you won't find anywhere else. Customize your Jeep with confidence knowing that you're saving money on every purchase at Crossroad Mods.


text:
Please help me. This Sunday (11/15/2009), at the Society Building (600 Tomlinson Rd, Bryn Athyn, PA 19009) between 12 and 3 p.m., you have the opportunity to participate in an important experiment.
I believe that doing good deeds—"benefactions"—while not the highest form of charity, is nevertheless necessary for the introduction of new people to the Lord's church. The Lord's disciples wanted to know when He would come again, and in response He said, "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near." (Luke 21:29-31) This is explained in the doctrines: "When a new Church is being created by the Lord, the good of the natural shows itself first of all, that is, good in external form together with the affection belonging to it and with truths." (AC 4231) "Good of the natural" is not just the natural good we are born into, but rather is that good we do because of spiritual principles. So as the church is created (as a community, or within an individual) a vital step is doing of good on the natural plane, from a spiritual principle—doing good, not just to "be nice", but as an act of worship of the Lord and love to the neighbor.
I believe that we cannot evangelize merely by sharing truths. Truth must be wed to good, like oxygen to blood, and so to be heart and lungs to the larger world around us, we must offer not just doctrine, but opportunities to bring doctrine to life. More than once the Lord described the growth of His kingdom using parables about inviting people to a feast, and eating represents making good a part of your life. So it is my theory that the world will be much more receptive of the Lord's new revelation if it is presented hand-in-hand with opportunities to serve the neighbor. We must not only share the truths of the church with people, but invite them into the life of the church right from the start. Is it a coincidence that the emerging generations of young people in our increasingly "vastating" world say they believe in God but reject churches because they don't seem to do any good?
Our doctrines say loving the neighbor is serving the good in others. When asked "who is the neighbor", the Lord didn't say the person left in the ditch was the neighbor, but the good Samaratan who stopped to help. This Sunday, we have a chance to support a group of Good Samaratans in a natural, powerful way. In developing nations in Africa and elsewhere, people are dying of AIDS. In many of their villages and towns, there are local caregivers who help relieve their pain, help prevent infection, assist with household needs including childcare, etc. Many of them are children themselves. World Vision supports these good Samaratans by providing them with kits of basic supplies that are cheap in this country but dear in theirs.
This Sunday, as an experiment in outreach, as a good deed of charity, as an act of worship, the Bryn Athyn Church and Charity in Action are inviting you to invite everyone you know to help us assemble 1,000 of these kits for World Vision. It takes only a few minutes to assemble a kit, plus maybe one more minute at the end for you to add a personal note of encouragement to your caregiver's kit. I did this myself a year ago, and can report that the Lord does indeed reward good behavior with delight.
So tell everyone. I hope to see you there.
[This is also appearing as this week's "Pastor's Box" in the Bryn Athyn Post. For additional information, see my previous post about this event.]


text:
A Productive Star Formation Factory
W3 is a region where many massive stars are forming in a string of stellar clusters, located about 6,000 light years from Earth in the Perseus arm of the Milky Way galaxy. W3 is part of a vast molecular cloud complex that also contains the W4 superbubble (not seen in this image). Scientists believe that the extraordinary amount of star formation in W3 has possibly been influenced by neighboring W4, an inflating bubble of gas over 100 light years across. W4 may directly trigger the birth of W3's massive stellar clusters as it expands and sweeps up molecular gas into a high-density layer at its edge, within which stars can form. Another possible scenario is that W4's expansion has caused a domino effect of star formation, forming the cluster IC 1795 (seen as a clump of X-ray sources in the bottom left corner of this image) which in turn triggered formation of the young, massive clusters in W3.
In this composite image of one of the many star-forming complexes of W3, called W3 Main, green and blue represent lower and higher-energy X-rays, respectively, while red shows optical emission. Hundreds of X-ray sources are revealed in this central region of W3 Main. These bright point-like objects are an extensive population of several hundred young stars, many of which were not found in earlier infrared studies. These Chandra data show that W3 Main is the dominant star formation region of W3. Because its X-ray sources are all at the same distance, yet span a range of masses, ages, and other properties, W3 is an ideal laboratory for understanding recent and ongoing star formation in one of the Milky Way's spiral arms.


text:
The Supernatural Realm Bundle - Mystery of Melchizedek Special
Mystery of Melchizedek included Free!
The Supernatural Realm Bundle includes:
Option 1: DVD Set (Includes PDF notes on disc)
- Angels Series - 3 Volume Set - DVD
- The Origin of Evil - DVD
- Heaven and Hell: What Happens When You Die? - DVD
- Expectations of the Antichrist - DVD
- Mystery of Melchizedek - DVD
Option 2: Video Download (Also Includes Audio files and PDF notes)
- Angels Series - 3 Volume Set - Video Download
- The Origin of Evil - Video Download
- Heaven and Hell: What Happens When You Die? - Video Download
- Expectations of the Antichrist - Video Download
- Mystery of Melchizedek - Video Download
Option 3: Audio Download (Also Includes PDF notes)
- Angels Series - 3 Volume Set - Audio Download
- The Origin of Evil - Audio Download
- Heaven and Hell: What Happens When You Die? - Audio Download
- Expectations of the Antichrist - Audio Download
- Mystery of Melchizedek - Audio Download
Approx. runtime: 17 Hours!
Expectations of the Antichrist
There are many diverse anticipations concerning the Coming World Leader, commonly referred to as "The Antichrist." This study will explore the Biblical descriptions with the specific expectations of the globalists, Islam, the Vatican, Freemasonry, and others.- Will he be a Nephilim?
- Why is the Vatican openly preparing to receive an "alien" visitor?
- Will he be a resurrection of Nimrod? Is his DNA a factor?
- What are the expectations of transhumanist technologists in this regard?
Clearly, the Bible has much more to illuminate this issue far beyond the popular conceptions; and yet the composite perspective will astonish most. Furthermore, is there a climactic cosmic deception being prepared that, if it were possible, "it would deceive the very elect"? Jesus commanded us, "Be not deceived." But, how?
How close are these events to our current horizon?
The Origin of Evil
When did Satan fall?
We know that the angels were created prior to the Earth. We find Satan had already fallen in Genesis 3. The mystery is, when did he fall? It appears that there are substantial Scriptural references to his rebellion, his agenda, and the subsequent catastrophic judgment that ensued.
This raises the whole issue of the origin of evil. And why hasn't God simply wiped him "and sin" out completely? It is also disturbing to recognize that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the kingdom, power and the glory in the temptations recorded in Luke 5. How could Satan lay a legitimate claim to these?
Heaven and Hell: What Happens When You Die?
What Happens When You Die?
We don't like to think about death. It's not a pleasant subject, and we avoid even discussing it seriously or giving it any diligent study. Yet our appointment with death is the most certain event in our future. We all know of personal examples when death has come suddenly to people, without warning, without preparations; car accidents, stray bullets, unforeseen strokes. When it comes our time, what do we expect death to be like? How will we enter eternity?
Angels Series - 3 Volume Set
For thousands of years, most of us have either had, or still hold to misconceptions, myths, legends or traditions about angels and our own reality.This three volume collection deals with these and many of the questions you may have such as:
- Are Angels real?
- What are the implications of being misinformed?
- What are the discoveries in the advance of science that may shed light on understanding Angels?
- What does the Bible say about Angels, Fallen Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Nephilim and Demons?
- Who are the major players in the Angelic Realm?
And included Free!
Mystery of Melchizedek
- Who was this strange Priest/King that received tithes from Abraham? (…and administered bread and wine to him?)
- How is Melchizedek relevant to the Messiah of Israel?
- Did Melchizedek have a temple that predated Solomon's?
- Is the Jewish Kingdom as portrayed in the Old Testament simply an intermediate parenthesis within a larger expanse?
- Why are the distinctives so divergent from the enforced separation of the kingship and priesthood under David?
- Were the bread and wine served by Melchizedek eschatological? Did they embrace the Cross? (They, too, echo across the pages of the OT)
- Was the Lord's Communion anticipated in Gen. 14?
Available in the following formats:
- All Region (NTSC)
- Digital Audio Files on Disc
- Handbook (PDF Study Notes) on Disc
Chuck Missler was the Founder of Koinonia House and Koinonia Institute. It was Chuck's vision for this ministry that brings us together. His aim was to stimulate us to dig into the Bible ourselves because as we study there is a real opportunity for us to encounter the God of the Universe. Chuck passed away on May 1st, 2018.
With over 30 years in the pastoral ministry, Ron has taught verse-by verse through the Bible many times, hosted a live two-hour TV programme broadcast across Europe for more than two years, and taught extensively on the subjects of evangelism, leadership, and end-times topics. Although Ron and his wife are native Californians, they moved to England in 1992 and in 2011 immigrated to New Zealand where they partnered with Chuck Missler at the ministry base, The River Lodge. Ron is currently the President of Koinonia House and Koinonia Institute.


text:
Subtitle: What we gotta do to get you Natives to stop complaining? Sub-Sub Title: You could start by moving the whole "Natives in Movies" thing forward and actually tell some better stories. Truth be told I'm often too busy to read the news. So I end up getting most of my news from my constantly updating Facebook feed (apparently, I am not too busy to visit Facebook). This is how I came across the following story: Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer as Lone Ranger and Tonto -- FIRST LOOK! My immediate reaction was "no Johnny, just no." Johnny Depp and some other guy (and does it really matter who the other guy is? It's a Depp vehicle. Look at how that guy who played Barbosa or even the monkey often stole the Pirates of the Carribbean film from him, but we don't remember their names) are making a new Lone Ranger and Tonto movie with Depp starring as, you guessed, Tonto. (or maybe you didn't guess it. Maybe you thought he would play the "main character" of the Lone Ranger and a Native actor would be playing Tonto, well - Surprise!) But don't worry, Johnny is Native too. I say that with very little sarcasm. Maybe as Depp says he is a Native person of the "Cherokee or maybe Creek origin" or whatever. Maybe his great grandmother was an Indian princess who married his great grandfather after she was relocated due to a boarding school program that thought she would be better off living in the city so she could erase her culture through assimilation. Maybe the historical trauma experienced by his native great grandmother caused an irreparable fracture whereby she disappeared into the masses of our society and did not want to clarify for Johnny exactly what tribe she was from. Or maybe it's not my job to judge Depp's Native identity (it would, however, explain why he is so darn good looking). The real question is, Indian ancestry or not, could the remake of The Lone Ranger and Tonto ever really work as a good idea? (And I'm not just talking about an "entertaining" or even "bankable/ marketable" idea. I'm saying, could it ever work in a way that doesn't contribute to the continued exploitation of Native people at the hands of an outdated, outrageous stereotype?) The short answer - no. An even better answer - why try? There are so many other better movies that could be made or marketed. Recently I heard about a movie where Natives on the Rez were fighting zombies, and it's funny too. What about any number of books that have been written about Native peple that have yet to make their way to screen? Call me Johnny - we can talk. (I have this script we can look over... because who doesn't?) The long answer... no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You see, The Lone Ranger and Tonto started in 1933 when a hero of the expanding West (The Lone Ranger) and his trusty sidekick (his horse!) and then the other side-side kick guy (that would be Tonto) would set out via the radio each night to help solve some problem that needed solving. And of course push forward this whole manifest destiny thing and help "tame" the wild frontier to get it ready for western expansion. Yes, that's what it was really about. Chadwick Allen writes in "The Hero with Two Faces: The Lone Ranger as Treaty Discourse" that the Lone Ranger and Tonto was ultimately about the conquest of the Western frontier. (And I agree with him - so that makes it ALL OKAY!) And for Allen this meant that Tonto was "...the idealized Indian" who "operates as an 'island of Tribalism' in a frontier imagined as overwhelmingly white, supervised and supported by the 'governmental' authority of the idealized white ranger" (612). Yep, that's what it was really about. Tonto was a good Indian. He was an Indian that continuously helped the western expansion by solving problems on the Frontier that would eventually lead to the killing, displacement, and destruction of Native people. The radio show went international in 1934. And by 1955 it was broadcast by "249 US stations and had the highest rating of any radio western, reaching an estimated 12 million listeners each week" (Allen, 613). It then also became a television show, movies and all around merchandising powerhouse. So what of this movie? I haven't seen it. But I have pause and trepidation. First, Disney is the major studio attached to the making of this project. The writers for the movie are all non-Native people who are closely tied with the movies Pirates of the Carribean and Aladdin (known for it's sterotypical portrayal of "barbaric" Middle Eastern people and it's portrayal of a 16 year old girl who HAS to marry a Prince or otherwise be disowned by her father). _Disney's involvement is particularly concerning being that Disney is a company that does not exactly have a good history with their treatment of Native peoples. The portrayal of the "Red Man" Indians in Peter Pan alone should inspire some trepidation. Of course, there is also the cartoon wonder that was Pochahontas. Native men in that movie were portrayed as boring, boorish and backward and poor Pochahontas herself was portrayed as America's princess all too eager to help the colonization project along. And let us not forget Disneyland - which at one time included an Indian village. The Indian Village sighting was originally a part of the "Jungle Cruise." And around the "Frontier Land" area you could stop by a store and buy all your cowboys and Indians gear, and then go to the fort to shoot at some Indians. (I haven't been to Disneyland in a while, but the last time I was there you could still buy yourself some good old Indian florescent pink and yellow feather war bonnets and a tomahawk, because with those bright feathers nobody will ever see you comin'! ) But even more, the studio and actors seem to know there will probably be an issue. They've already stuck Depp out there in front of the news media to address this issue. Almost as if having their "real Indian" get out to talk about how great this movie is actually going to be for Indians should somehow make everyone stop fidgeting uncomfortably around while they release pictures of Jack Sparrow with a bird on his head. Depp himself is paraded around to assure us that "I like the character. I think I have interesting plans for the character, and I think the film itself could be entertaining and very funny. But I also like the idea of having the opportunity to make fun of the idea of the Indian as a sidekick - which has always been [the case] throughout the history of Hollywood, the Native American has always been a second-class, third-class, fourth-class citizen, and I don't see Tonto that way at all. So it's an opportunity for me to salute Native Americans." And let me make special note that just because Johnny is Native and agrees to making the movie does not mean that this makes it a good idea. It doesn't mean there aren't any problems any more. This has happened to me a lot. "I see you wrote that this play is totally problematic in its portrayal of Native people, but guess what we met this one Native guy who said it was fine so that makes it ALL OKAY!" The "feeling" that there is something up with this whole "Tonto" thing, that's real (Disney and the people making this film). You should listen to that instinct. You should try to do something about it aside from trying to get us to back down because Johnny Native came out and said it was ALL OKAY. Find out about this history, Disney. Find out about what it means to be a "Tonto", watch Reel Injun, read books about the portrayal of Indian people in films, have a talk with some other Indians (because we know you have your one guy, but you can have more than one talking at you... it's alright). Diane Krumrey writes in her essay "Subverting the Tonto Stereotype in Popular Fiction, or, why Indians say 'UGH'" that "...the winning combination in a frontier novel had to include an Indian, male or female, who loved and supported the main character away from danger, who would even sacrifice him - or herself to preserve the whites. In America, this has come to be known as the Lone Ranger and Tonto Syndrome..." You see Johnny, it's a syndrome. It's a real thing. And it's still carried with Native peoples, especially those who have to go to the movies to watch as we become tall blue animal like creatures who have sex with our hair, or shirtless extra warm werewolves, or primitive monkey like people who try to protect our greatest secret, that aliens were made of crystals and gave us all of our knowledge. Tonto is a thing. Being called a Tonto is a thing. Maybe you can try to re appropriate Tonto, maybe it's a bit of an admirable goal, but did you see what they did with Pirates of the Caribbean III? If you couldn't control that monster - how in the hell are you going to control this? And in the end, we watch as once again a Native person is portrayed on screen aside a strong, valiant white character. We wait and wonder what happens next. We listen as people wonder "why was that such a big deal anyway. Tonto was (insert nice adjective here, funny, smart, strong, deeply in touch with the earth, better at shooting a bow and arrow)" and then we go home and think about how we don't really ever get to see portrayals of Native people on screen that don't somehow involve old stereotypes that refuse to die. And then my daughter goes to school. And I remember being in school and being the Indian girl there. Granted, I never took the time to ask these kids if their motivation for what they portrayed as "Cowboys and Indians" was mostly influenced by their own imagination or if it was as a result of what happens in the movies. But I have a feeling. Because you see, Johnny, what happens with these movies might not seem real to you, but it's real. When I was in elementary school I had long, dark hair that I wore in braids. Little kids would dance around me sometimes and whoop and holler. They would pull my braids and call me "Pochahontas" or sometimes "Wild Flower" or "Indian Girl." "Where's your bow and arrow Pochahontas? Why don't you growl around like a dog? How come you aren't dancing around and whooping like this?" (Boy starts dancing around like and Indian around the fire making whooping noises). And one time I watched as they played Cowboys and Indians, which for them meant grabbing some kid and pretending to tie him to a wooden pole where they set him on fire while dancing around him (those were the Indians). In rode the most powerful cowboy. He had the power to put out fire and rescue this kid. He also had the power to kill every single Indian in sight. At the end of it all as he was riding away he stopped in front of me and spit at the ground. "Don't mess with us you Indians" he said. End scene. Look Johnny if you want to contact me click on the contact button above. I'm happy to talk. My mom has the biggest crush on you by the way. It's part of the reason why I can't say that I do, because that would be weird to have a crush on your future stepfather.
7/16/2012 08:55:02 am
Why did they not pik a Native American actor to portray Tonto in the Johnny Depp film...Lone Ranger.????? Don't get me wrong I'm a huge Depp fan...........but as a Native n from Taos Nm ..........there r Native American actors................SO WHY NOT ONE OF THEM???
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
SubscribeClick to
AuthorCutcha Risling Baldy is an Associate Professor and Department Chair of Native American Studies at Humboldt State University. She received her PhD in Native American Studies from the University of California, Davis. She is also a writer, mother, volunteer Executive Director for the Native Women's Collective and is currently re-watching My Name is Earl... (5) Top PostsOn telling Native people to just "get over it" or why I teach about the Walking Dead in my Native Studies classes... *Spoiler Alert!*
Hokay -- In which I lead a presentation on what happens when you Google "Native American Women" and critically analyze the images or "Hupas be like dang where'd you get that dentalium cape girl? Showing off all your money! PS: Suck it Victorias Secret"
In which we establish that there was a genocide against Native Americans, yes there was, it was genocide, yes or this is why I teach Native Studies part 3 million
5 Reasons I Wear "Indian" Jewelry or Hupas...we been bling-blingin' since Year 1
Pope Francis decides to make Father Junipero Serra a saint or In Which I Tell Pope Francis he needs to take a Native Studies class like stat
I need to read more Native blogs!A few that I read...
June 2020


text:
Ashley Streuber reflects on CCAA Female Apprentice Coach Program experience
By Jadon Frank
After a stand-out career as a middle hitter for Briercrest women's volleyball from 2006-2010 and 2011-12 seasons, Winnipeg's Ashley Streuber made the transition to coaching for the 2012-13 season.
Briercrest women's volleyball coach Nolan Weinmaster reflected on the year with Streuber as his assistant coach, and what the CCAA Female Apprentice Coach Program meant to the program.
"We were very privileged to have Ashley chosen to participate in the CCAA Female Apprentice Coach Program," Weinmaster said. "It was a fantastic opportunity for Ashley to grow as a leader and a coach and I was very grateful for the opportunity to have her involved with our women's volleyball team here at Briercrest. It was a valuable growing experience for me to be a mentor coach as well. We are grateful to the CCAA and Sport Canada for providing the funding for this program and for choosing Ashley from amongst all the great applicants across the country! I know Ashley is going to be a great leader and coach in the years ahead!"
Streuber answered questions about the program, and her experience at Briercrest.
Q. What did the apprenticeship program mean to you? How did it assist you?
A. I definitely appreciate the opportunity I was given to take part in the apprenticeship program. Nolan was an excellent coach to work with.
Q. What did you learn through coaching?
A. I learned a lot through coaching. I learned more about myself and the areas of growth I need to consider if I coach again in the future. I learned some of the challenges that come with being in a coaching role and the importance of consistently making decisions with integrity. Being an assistant coach also affirmed for me the desire I have to work with people in a supportive role.
Q. What was the mentorship process like? What were the biggest take-always that you learned from Nolan?
A. I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to coach alongside Nolan. I have always respected Nolan and the amount of time and care he devotes to his work. One of the greatest things I observed in Nolan throughout the entire season was the way he led by example. Nolan consistently demonstrated a coaching style that reflected commitment, passion, and care. It was evident that he not only cared about the athletic development of his team, but also about their spiritual and character development.
Q. What brought you back to do seminary and coach after graduation?
A. When I decided I wanted to pursue a M.A. of counseling it was easy to choose Briercrest because it had already become a second home to me. piano keyboard radyo dinle Attending seminary also meant another opportunity to play volleyball! During my first year in seminary I completed my fifth year of eligibility as a player. Therefore, coaching seemed like a natural progression and an opportunity to remain involved with the team.
Q. What was your biggest highlight from this past year?
A. I absolutely loved supporting the team as they achieved the most successful season thus far for the Briercrest women's volleyball team. It was especially exciting to watch them win their play-off match which guaranteed their participation in the final provincial tournament.
Q. How will you use this experience in the future?
A. Whether or not I coach in the future my experience as an assistant coach has helped me recognize my general leadership style and the areas I need to improve on. I will use this experience as an affirmation of the desire I have to work with others in a supportive role.
Q. Where are you now? What is your plan for the future?
A. Currently I am in my second year of studies for my M.A. Marriage and Family Counseling degree. This next year I will be doing a counseling internship in Winnipeg at Youth for Christ and hope to continue working there in the future.


text:
"Silver anniversary"
Randy Kromas
Comments: This little jewelry box was the perfect gift for my wife on our 25th anniversary. The box is very attractive and the engraving really makes it a great keepsake.
"Egyptian Design Silver Jewelry Box"
Donna Thorn
Comments: Fabulous, beautiful; workmanship is excellent; Engraved Name on box perfect! Bought it for a gift!
"Loved it!"
Ann Gayeskie
Comments: When you see only a picture you don't have high expectations. This was beyond what I thought I was going to get. The size and the personal inscription was perfect. I am definitely going to be a return customer.
"The perfect display box"
donna dolliver
Comments: I recently received the Egyptian Design Silver Jewelry Box and it was EXACTLY as shown on your website. The quality is EXCEPTIONAL (weight, finish, interior lining, and engraving). I also appreciate the prompt shipping. Great value for a terrific product.
"Egyptian Design Silver Jewelry Box"
Comments: Beautiful jewelry box. My nieces gave this to me for my birthday and it looks amazing. I use it for my earrings and rings. Love it.
"Absolutely beautiful."
Comments: This jewelry box is so beautiful. The picture does it no justice. I purchased it to keep something dear from our late grandfather and nothing good be more worthy.