1 / 18

Topology and link state views and Multi-layer TP entities Munich Meeting 13 – 15 th of May 2005

Topology and link state views and Multi-layer TP entities Munich Meeting 13 – 15 th of May 2005. WP 4 Network Management and Control/Protocols Håkon Lønsethagen, Telenor R&D. Rational.

amalia
Télécharger la présentation

Topology and link state views and Multi-layer TP entities Munich Meeting 13 – 15 th of May 2005

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. Topology and link state viewsand Multi-layer TP entitiesMunich Meeting 13 – 15th of May 2005 WP 4 Network Management and Control/ProtocolsHåkon Lønsethagen, Telenor R&D WP4 ML TP entities

  2. Rational • IM TF has stated that the CP-T part of the IM (managed entities representing the TP) should be based on the topology and link state view established and handled by the CP components as a result of their routing activity • An IM of topology and link state as viewed by the CP is likely to help the understanding existing routing protocols and the further development of GMPLS/ASON (inter-domain) routing protocols. WP4 ML TP entities

  3. Objective • Stimulate discussion, and development of examples topologies • Illustrate typical network topologies and try to “partition” them and illustrate how to model corresponding entities at the different levels of the partitioning “hierarchy” • To allow hierarchical routing • As seen by an operator • Examples, to be explored and elaborated by collaboration among the WP4 “routing” and IM TFs • Similarities and differences between IP/MPLS routing concepts and G.805 concepts • (Is G.805 suitable to represent topology/link state views derived from IP/MPLS/GMPLS-based routing?) WP4 ML TP entities

  4. Assumptions • Approach based on ITU-T requirements • D18 assumptions regarding multi-switching capabilities and multi-layer entities • CP-T should be based on the TED “IM” built from the routing information exchange • Link state routing – allowing hierarchical routing • Inter area/AS boundary on the link, not within the node (LSR) • That is, not traditional IP OSPF or OSPF-TE • We note that routing protocols for ASTN/GMPLS inter-area/AS are still under development WP4 ML TP entities

  5. Observation (correct???) • IP/MPLS/GMPLS routing • Topology and link state, Strictly based on LSRs view of its interfaces • Reachability information • Issue • Is G.805 based aggregation/partitioning of topology (subnetwork, abstract links) information compatible with IP/MPLS/GMPLS routing and associated aggregation/partitioning? WP4 ML TP entities

  6. Base network topology “To be partitioned and modelled (CP-T)” N N+1 N+2 WP4 ML TP entities

  7. Base network topology“To be partitioned and modelled (CP-T)” N N+1 N+2 A2 A3 A1 WP4 ML TP entities

  8. Alt. AView as seen from each of the LSRs within A1 for level N+2 • Note, this figure address only routing information dissemination among LSRs within A1 • Routing information dissemination between peer A1, A2 and A3 border LSRs will be addressed at a higher level • The routing info related to A2 and A3 is reachability oriented N+2 A2 A3 A1 WP4 ML TP entities

  9. Base network topology“To be partitioned and modelled (CP-T)” N A N+1 N+2 A2 A3 A1 WP4 ML TP entities

  10. Alt. AView as seen from each of the LSRs within routing area A (for level N+1) • Note, this figure address only routing information dissemination among LSRs within A • Routing information dissemination between peer A, B and C border LSRs will be address at a higher level N+1 A B WP4 ML TP entities

  11. Base network topology“To be partitioned and modelled (CP-T)” ABC N A B C N+1 N+2 A2 A3 A1 WP4 ML TP entities

  12. Alt. AView as seen from each of the LSRs within routing area ABC (for level N) • Note, this figure address only routing information dissemination among LSRs within ABC N WP4 ML TP entities

  13. Base network topology“To be partitioned and modelled (CP-T)” N A N+1 N+2 A2 A3 A1 WP4 ML TP entities

  14. WP4 ML TP entities

  15. Alt. B1View as seen from each of the LSRs within routing area A (for level N+1) • Note, this figure address only routing information dissemination among LSRs within A • Routing information dissemination between peer A, B and C border LSRs will be address at a higher level N+1 A B WP4 ML TP entities

  16. Fig. from D18 WP4 ML TP entities

  17. Issues • Do we need a combination of both link state and subnetwork state information? • Abstract node (G.805 subnetwork) – that can aggregate several nodes • Subnetwork view with an aggregated internal view • Abstract link – which can aggregate several links • Modelling of • Variable adaptation WP4 ML TP entities

  18. Issues, workplan? • Make an IM of the topology and link state view generated by OSPF • Intra-area • Inter-area (including backbone area) • Extend the IM of the topology and link state view generated by OSPF-TE • Assess similarities and differences between this IM and G.805-based IMs • Is this a reasonable approach? • Have someone else done this? TMF? ITU-T? OIF? WP4 ML TP entities

More Related