1 / 6

Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE

Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE. IETF #56, San Francisco draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-02.txt Cheng-Yin Lee ( cheng-yin.lee@alcatel.com ) Adrian Farrel ( afarrel@movaz.com ) Stefaan De Cnodder ( stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be ). Charter item

yori
Télécharger la présentation

Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE

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. Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE IETF #56, San Francisco draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-02.txt Cheng-Yin Lee (cheng-yin.lee@alcatel.com) Adrian Farrel (afarrel@movaz.com) Stefaan De Cnodder (stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be)

  2. Charter item “Define signaling mechanisms for protection, diverse routing…” Increasing interest in managing route exclusions for diversity, multi-AS and distributed routing responsibility This is an extension to MPLS but is generalized and should form part of GMPLS Why in the CCAMP WG?

  3. Some signaled EROs are not strict explicit Loose hops Abstract nodes such as prefixes and AS numbers Where is path computation performed? Offline or at the ingress Protection domains Limited visibility of routing information George’s overlay draft Path computation request signaling (JP Vasseur) Multiple areas (NOT a prerequisite for this draft) MPLS-TE-MIB allows route exclusions Why do we need route exclusion?

  4. List nodes, links, resources, SRLGs that must not be used anywhere on the path Exclude Route Object (XRO) looks like an ERO List nodes, links, resources, SRLGs that must not be used between a pair of hops in an ERO New Exclude Route Subobjects (EXRS) in ERO Control whether exclusion is mandatory or desired Summary of the Schemes

  5. Changes in this draft • Identification of new work items • Addition of further examples and explanation of the applicability • Reduction of the length of the XRO and EXRS subobjects • Identification of the scope of relevance of exclusions so that they may be omitted from signaled messages, or at least from path computations, when they are not relevant • Ability to exclude unnumbered links • Convergence of SRLG identification with formats defined in other drafts • Simplify!

  6. Actions • Useful feedback recently - thanks • We solicit input from providers on how they avoid resources • Look for convergence with JP’s draft • Discuss work items today • Email me to join us • Updates and re-publish • Request to be adopted by WG • TEWG doing multi-AS/area requirements? • CCAMP will do multi-AS/area??? • But this is not just a multi-AS/area thing

More Related