1 / 9

PW QOS Signaling Draft-shah-pwe3-qos-signaling-02.txt

PW QOS Signaling Draft-shah-pwe3-qos-signaling-02.txt. Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp. Ping Pan HammerHead Systems Hamid Ould-Brahim, Nortel Networks Chris Metz Cisco. Why Signal QOS.

venedict-diego
Télécharger la présentation

PW QOS Signaling Draft-shah-pwe3-qos-signaling-02.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PW QOS SignalingDraft-shah-pwe3-qos-signaling-02.txt Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp Ping Pan HammerHead Systems Hamid Ould-Brahim, Nortel Networks Chris Metz Cisco Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  2. Why Signal QOS • In current implementations, QOS parameters are manually configured at the PE devices. This restricts configurations where QOS parameters are dynamically determined for some Attachment Circuits – ex. ATM SVCs • As the number of PWs grow, setting consistent QOS parameters at PE devices becomes cumbersome • With the use of auto-discovery of PW endpoints, admitting PW connections based on available resources is key • In Multi-segment PWs, each switching PE must know what the QOS requirements are in order to determine its eligibility as a suitable PW switching node • Need for QOS signaling for PW is undisputable Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  3. What is the Proposal • Tail-end PE prepares QOS-TLV based on local AC’s QOS information • QOS TLV is sent in optional parameter field of the Label Mapping message (as described in PWE3 Control draft) • Head-end may ignore or process and reciprocate with his local AC’s QOS • Code point for PW-STATUS TLV defined for receiver to reject if QOS parameters are not agreeable • QOS TLV can be exchanged in NOTIFICATION message as an update mechanism. • Backward compatible Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  4. Updates in current rev • Added Clarifications on why PW QOS is important • Added mechanisms to enable PW QOS signaling for multi-segmented PW. • Added Forward/Backward flag • Added Requested/Available flag • Ability to send more than one QOS TLVs Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  5. Single Segment PW (2) PW-FEC with AC1’s QOS (4) Apply Shaper and select transport Tunnel (1) AC1 QOS PE 1 PE 2 (3) Apply Policer AC1 AC2 PE 2 MPLS (5) AC2 QOS (7) Apply Policer (6) PW-FEC with AC2’s QOS (8) Apply Shaper and select transport Tunnel Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  6. Multi Segment PW LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LR LM LM LR LR Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  7. Congestion Notification Experiencing Congestion!! AC1’s traffic forwarded to PW PE 1 PE 2 PW AC1 AC2 PE 2 MPLS Apply Policer Apply Shaper NOTIFICATION with updated AC2’s QOS Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  8. Applicability • Simple extension to current PW signaling • Backward compatible • Provides effective utilization of core resources • Allows disparate allocation of QOS at each site • Not dependent on transport tunnel technology (i.e. does not have to be RSVP-TE tunnel) • Offers Congestion notification mechanisms Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

  9. Conclusion • Request to adopt the proposal as WG item • questions Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp

More Related