1 / 4

Snigdho Bardalai ( sbardalai@infinera ) Rajan Rao ( rrao@infinera )

Routing Extensions for G.709 OTN ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ashok-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709 / ). Snigdho Bardalai ( sbardalai@infinera.com ) Rajan Rao ( rrao@infinera.com ) Khuzema Pithewan ( kpithewan@infinera.com ) Ashok Kunjidhapatham ( akunjidhapatham@infinera.com ).

akeem-hicks
Download Presentation

Snigdho Bardalai ( sbardalai@infinera ) Rajan Rao ( rrao@infinera )

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. Routing Extensions for G.709 OTN( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ashok-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709/ ) Snigdho Bardalai (sbardalai@infinera.com) Rajan Rao (rrao@infinera.com) Khuzema Pithewan (kpithewan@infinera.com) Ashok Kunjidhapatham (akunjidhapatham@infinera.com)

  2. Backwards Compatibility (1) Node-A Node-B Node-C Link A-B: • G.709-v1 version compatible OTUk interface (2001) • Uses RFC 4328 for signaling • RFC 4203 & RFC 4201 based ISCD interpretation Link B-C: • G.709-v3 version compatible OTUk interface (12/09) • Uses ISCD + SCSI extensions as per our draft

  3. Backwards compatibility(2) Note: • The GOALis to make TE-links with newer OTN capabilities compatible with CSPF in deployed networks • The ISCD format proposed in our draft allows Node-A • To interpret unReserved-BW, MaxLSP-BW and MinLSP-BW as per RFC4203 & RFC 4201 • Crank-back possibilities if muxing limitations exist • With or without Node-A going through software upgrade • Our BW model can be easily extended to support ODUflex • Requires ODUflex to become sub-TLV in SCSI • Addresses the case when ODUflex is not supported (the scenario you highlighted in your email)

  4. Options to address Backwards Compatibility • If backwards compatibility needs to be addressed: • Use main ISCD as per RFC 4202/4203/4201 • Define a new sub-TLV for ODUflex in SCSI (BW in bytes/sec) • If backwards compatibility is not an issue: • Use main ISCD for ODUflexBW advertisement • No need for a separate sub-TLV for ODUflex • Either option can be easily accommodated in our BW Model • Option#1 is nice to have • We can address either based on agreement in IETF-WG

More Related