1 / 9

Progress

MLN/MRN draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-02.txt draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt. Kohei Shiomoto (NTT), Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel), Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom), Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T)

afram
Download Presentation

Progress

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. MLN/MRNdraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-02.txtdraft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-02.txt draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Kohei Shiomoto (NTT), Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel), Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom), Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T) dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

  2. Progress • Req document - editorial update no modification from last revision • Eval document - editorial update no modification from last revision • Open points • Terminology: virtual TE link => induced TE link • Requirement on SRLG inheritance process (base mechanism in RFC4206)

  3. Solution Doc. • Extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures • GMPLS routing extension for the advertisement of the internal adaptation capability of hybrid nodes. • GMPLS signaling extension for constrained multi-region signaling (SC inclusion/exclusion) • GMPLS signaling extension for the setup/deletion of the virtual TE-links (as well as exact trigger for its actual provisioning) • GMPLS routing and signaling extension for graceful TE-link deletion (covered in [GR-TELINK])

  4. Approach • Focus on protocol extensions and mechanisms not “applicability” or “policy” of existing GMPLS mechanisms and/or extensions

  5. Edge to edge association • No state maintenance on transit LSRs • Relies on extensions to the GMPLS RSVP-TE Call procedure ([GMPLS-CALL]) • Mechanism • exchanging identification and TE attributes information directly between TE link end points (= LSP head and tail-end points of the LSP(s) that may be established) • Once call is established, resulting association populates the local TEDB and the resulting TE link is advertized as any other TE link. • Once an upper layer/lower region LSP makes use of this TE link. A set of one or more LSPs must be initially established before the FA LSP can be used for nesting the incoming LSP

  6. Edge to edge association • In order to distinguish usage of such call from a classical call (as defined e.g. in [RFC4139]), a CALL ATTRIBUTE object is introduced • CALL_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in support of a call, or to indicate the nature or use of a call • built on the LSP-ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC4420] • Specific flag to indicate that the association initiated between the end-points belonging to as call is to be mapped into a TE link advertisement.

  7. Soft FA • Setup FA LSP at the control plane level without actually committing resources in the data plane. • Once such FA is established the corresponding TE link can be advertized following the procedures described in [RFC 4206]. • New flag in Attributes Flags TLV of LSP_REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES object [RFC4420]: pre-planned LSP Flag. • The pre-planned LSP Flag can take one of the following values: • Flag = 0 - the LSP should be fully provisioned • Flag = 1 - the LSP should be provisioned in the control plane only. • Operation of committing data plane resources occurs by re-signaling the same LSP with the pre-planned Flag set to 0

  8. Path Provisioned only LSPs • Difference b/w • LSP that is established with 0 bandwidth (path only provisioning) • LSP that is established with a certain bandwidth value not committed at the data plane level (i.e. pre-planned LSP). • The former is currently not possible using the GMPLS protocol suite (following technology specific SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC) • GMPLS Traffic Parameters do not support setup of 0 bandwidth LSPs • However a soft FA could itself lead to a path only provisioned LSP (packet case) … • Question: in this document or separate I-D (more generic usage ?)

  9. Next steps • Req and eval doc ready for LC • Note: editorial revision may be needed • Solution doc as WG I-D ? • Close the MLN/MRN trilogy by 1q’07

More Related