1. Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01 Greg Bernstein: gregb@grotto-networking.com Diego Caviglia: Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com Richard Rabbat: richard@us.fujitsu.com Slides prepared with Huub van Helvoort

2. A VCAT example with Ethernet Service End-to-end Ethernet Service Signal adaptation consistence CE CE Transport resource selection Transport Network SNP PE PE Note: Requires Consistent Adaptation functionality at Ingress and Egress Nodes Network connections supporting Ethernet Service

3. Virtual Concatenation: VCAT • A general inverse multiplexing technique that can be applied to several transport technologies including SONET/SDH, PDH, and OTN • Allows a better bandwidth fit of Ethernet client layer to transport • e.g.: 7 STS-3c circuits (155 Mbps each) to carry GigE, instead of 1 STS-48 (2.5 Gbps) • Not restricted to Ethernet; applies to FC, etc. • Currently some support in GMPLS, however several desirable scenarios appear unsupported.

4. Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme: LCAS • Without LCAS, the existing service has to be terminated and another one has to be established between the same Ingress Node and Egress Node • LCAS enhancement to VCAT to allow the hitless increase and decrease of used bandwidth • Allows for fast graceful degradation in the case of component failure, i.e., automatic notification and removal from active use in the group – does not teardown or restore faulty component LSP --. • Observations: • LCAS does not play any role in establishing the component LSPs, only in whether they are actively used within the VCAT group. • Not all VCAT-capable endpoints are LCAS-capable

5. Aim of this Draft • Illustrate the use of GMPLS in supporting VCAT/LCAS operation • Exhaustive list of component signal configuration scenarios • Explain how current routing/signaling mechanisms can be used to support VCAT/LCAS applications • When existing mechanisms are insufficient, try to extend current work to cover what’s missing

6. Why not reuse existing sol’s? • Can’t we use concatenated labels? • Can only work on the same path • Is this bundling? • Bundling doesn’t allow the service to span multiple component links • Can we use association id for VCAT group? • Probably

7. Thinking about the solution… • Routing • Add 2 bits, one for vcat capability, one for lcas capability of a TE link • Signaling • We need to tell how big the group is (VCAT) or is going to be (LCAS)? • May need to know in advance so we don’t set up 60 and choke at #61 • We need some VCAT group id, possibly use association id • List of extra error codes we thought of: • Be able to refuse the 1st one • Be able to refuse subsequent ones: no more • Alarm such as signal label mismatch (mapping scheme, e.g. GFP, LAPS) should also be communicated as an error code • Inter-domain boundaries • May need to terminate association at the boundary and restart a new one

8. Next Steps • Comments received from Huub van Helvoort • Is this work of interest to the WG? • The overall objective is to document and/or standardize the bits & bytes that make VCAT/LCAS possible in a GMPLS environment • Suggest to adopt as WG document if there is interest & continue & develop solution • Ethernet-specific part to live in different (applicability) id