1 / 11

Control Plane Resilience

Control Plane Resilience. Young H. Kim ETRI November 7, 2005. Status of Drafts. draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-01.txt Requirements for providing CP resilience in non-(G)MPLS and (G)MPLS Terminology, necessities, and solution specific requirements for CP resilience

adonis
Télécharger la présentation

Control Plane Resilience

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. Control Plane Resilience Young H. Kim ETRI November 7, 2005

  2. Status of Drafts • draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-01.txt • Requirements for providing CP resilience in non-(G)MPLS and (G)MPLS • Terminology, necessities, and solution specific requirements forCP resilience • But, focused on a specific solution of control channels • draft-kim-ccamp-accp-protocol-00.txt • Based on the concept of common channel signaling • Extension of LMP’s control channel management • Protocol description for CC protection/restoration

  3. Overview of CP • Components of CP • Control entities • Control nodes • Control channels • Glance of IP/(G)MPLS • IP: fate sharing bet’n CP and DP, no real CP, IGP based • MPLS: similar to IP • GMPLS: separation bet’n CP and DP, real CP, ? • Et cetera • Users of control channels: vary according to provisioning rule • Configuration of control channels: in-bend and out-of-bend

  4. Control entity A Control entity C Control entity B Control entity A Control node A Relationship of CP Components Control entity C Control entity B Control entity A Control node B Control channel Control entity A Control entity C Control entity B Control entity A Control node C

  5. Issue Matrix for CP Resilience Existing tools Components Fields Problems Timescale IP/MPLS - IGP - Protocol Specific GR Protocol dependent Control entities (CEs) Selective GMPLS IP/MPLS Deployment policy dependent Nothing special Control nodes (CNs) Node duplicate GMPLS Not sure Not sure Not sure IP/MPLS Control channels (CCs) - No use of detour CCs - No consideration of physical CCs 1 year for extension GMPLS LMP

  6. Example of Control Network Node-B b3 IP Network b1 b2 a1 c1 a4 a2 c2 Node-A Node-C a3 c3 <Control modes> <In case between A and B nodes> • Associated mode: PG-1 • Quasi-associated mode: PG-2 • Non-associated mode: PG-3 • PG-1: a1/b1 • PG-2: a2/c2-c1/b2, a3/c3-c1/b2 • PG-3: a4/b3

  7. Initiating Status of CCs

  8. Identification Status of PG 1/3 CCs

  9. Identification Status of Detour CCs

  10. Information Flows on Switchover Node-A Node-B Node-C Node-A a1 b1 Switchover SwitchoverAck c2 a2 Switchover b2 c1 SwitchoverNack c2

  11. Future Works • draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-01.txt • To be updated based on discussion of mailing list • Especially, protocol-neutral approachesneeded • draft-kim-ccamp-accp-protocol-00.txt • ACCP’s FSM • How to use control channels separately dependent on control packets such as signaling, routing and link management • End-to-end CC connection using concatenation of CCs within a control network • CC recovery between control networks … • My hope: consensus of these drafts, then WG documents

More Related