1 / 11

CCAMP WG, IETF 66 Jul. 10, 2006 Kohei Shiomoto (NTT) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)

Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-01.txt. CCAMP WG, IETF 66 Jul. 10, 2006 Kohei Shiomoto (NTT) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T)

russ
Télécharger la présentation

CCAMP WG, IETF 66 Jul. 10, 2006 Kohei Shiomoto (NTT) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)

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. Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region andmulti-layer networks (MRN/MLN)draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-01.txt CCAMP WG, IETF 66 Jul. 10, 2006 Kohei Shiomoto (NTT) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Eiji Oki (NTT) Ichiro Inoue (NTT) Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel)

  2. Changes since Dallas (1) • Clarified client/server relationship • Customer network provided on top of a server MRN/MLN • MLN/MRN services • The customer network may form part of the MRN/MLN or may be partially separated • E.g. separate routing instances • Multiple control plane instances addressed as part of the client/server relationship • MLN definition kept as is: • "A set of LSR with multiple data plane layers of either the same ISC or different ISCs, controlled by a single GMPLS control plane instance"

  3. Changes since Dallas (2) • Added some requirements • FA LSP rerouting MUST be possible while the FA LSP is carrying traffic, with minimal traffic disruption • Virtual TE link creation/deletion MUST be under the control of operator policy • Some rewordings for the sake of clarity

  4. Next Steps • Requirements for control plane separation between client and server layers • Support for administrative boundary between client and server MLN/MRN network , minimizing impact on the customer network design, operation, and administration • Support for path computation across separated TEDs associated with client and server MLN/MRN network • Support for association between TE-links in separated TEDs associated with client and server MLN/MRN networks • Discussion should continue on the list

  5. Evaluation of existing GMPLS protocols against MLN requirementsdraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-01.txt CCAMP WG, IETF 66 July 10, 2006 Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Eiji Oki (NTT)Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)Kohei Shiomoto (NTT)Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Ichiro Inoue (NTT) Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel)

  6. Evaluation Summary • Four areas, where extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures are required, have been identified • GMPLS signaling extension for the setup/deletion of virtual TE-links • GMPLS routing and signaling extension for graceful TE-link deletion • GMPLS signaling extension for constrained multi-region signaling (SC inclusion/exclusion) • GMPLS routing extension for the advertisement of the internal adaptation capability of hybrid nodes.

  7. Changes since Dallas • Alignedclient/server relationship with the requirement draft • Clarified analysis of the VNT reconfiguration function • Clear distinction between elementary functional blocks • Collection of traffic demands of an upper layer • VNT Management (decision to setup/remove FA-LSPs, FA config) • VNT Computation • There functions can be distributed on networks elements and/or centralized • Anyway, no need for GMPLS protocol extensions here • Detailed analysis of virtual TE link function • Two approaches • Soft-FA: LSP signaled but data plane resources not committed => Could rely on procedures similar to secondary LSPs (shared meshed restoration) • Remote Association: LSP not signaled, TE link ids and parameters exchanged between FA end-points => Could rely on extensions to the Call procedure (with Notify messages) • Pros and cons are discussed • Soft FA: More admission control capabilities, but scalability limitations • Remote Association: Scales well but less admission control

  8. Next Steps • Analyze requirements for control plane separation between client and server layers • Path computation across separated TEDs • Association of TE-links in separated TEDs • Client/MLN administrative boundaries • Continue discussion on the list

  9. (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-02.txt CCAMP WG, IETF 66 July 10, 2006 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)Kohei Shiomoto (NTT) Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Ichiro Inoue (NTT) Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel)

  10. Overview • This draft defines GMPLS protocol extensions for Multi Layer Networks • Currently two protocol extensions defined • Routing extensions for the advertisement of the Internal Adaptation Capabilities: • IACD sub-TLV to be carried within the ISIS Extended IS Reacheability TLV or the OPSF Link TLV • Signaling extensions for SC inclusion exclusion • A new SC subobject to be carried within the ERO and XRO

  11. Next Steps • Draft restructuring to focus on GMPLS protocol extensions • Clarify SC Inclusion/exclusion procedures • Define solution(s) for virtual TE links • WG feedback required • Adopt as WG doc?

More Related