1 / 6

88th IETF, CCAMP WG, Vancouver, BC, Canada (November 2013 )

RSVP-TE Recovery Extension for data plane initiated reversion and protection timer signaling draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-09 . txt. Attila Takacs ( attila.takacs@ericsson.com ) Francesco Fondelli ( francesco.fondelli.ericsson.com ) Benoit Tremblay ( benoit.c.tremblay@ericsson.com )

baris
Download Presentation

88th IETF, CCAMP WG, Vancouver, BC, Canada (November 2013 )

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. RSVP-TE Recovery Extension for data plane initiated reversionand protection timer signalingdraft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-09.txt Attila Takacs (attila.takacs@ericsson.com) Francesco Fondelli (francesco.fondelli.ericsson.com) Benoit Tremblay (benoit.c.tremblay@ericsson.com) Zafar Ali (zali@cisco.com) - Presenter 88th IETF, CCAMP WG, Vancouver, BC, Canada (November 2013)

  2. Outline • Requirements • Updates since last version • Solution • Next Steps

  3. Requirements • For successful establishment of a protected service, Ingress and Egress nodes need to agree on the following protection attributes: • Protection Revert Mode (i.e., revertive or non-revertive) [RFC4427] • Hold-off time (HOFF) [RFC4427] • Wait-to-Restore time (WTR) [RFC4427] • Pre-configuration of these protection attributes on per LSP basis is neither desirable nor scalable. • Currently RSVP-TE does not specify signaling of these protection attributes.

  4. Update Since Last Version • Lou, et al asked us to justify why we did not make use of OAM configuration framework to the mailing list. • We followed-up and closed on the mailing list with the justification. • Removed signaling SNC sub-type based on the feedback.

  5. Solution • Update Protection Object format (a new C-Type) allowing sub-TLVs 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num(37) | C-Type(2 IANA)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|P|N|O| Reserved | LSP Flags | Reserved | Link Flags| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I|R| Reserved | Seg.Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • Introduce WTR and HOFF sub-TLVs • If the WTR timer value is set to 0, the protection switching operation mode is assumed to be non-revertive (otherwise revertive).

  6. Next steps • Draft has been through various revisions and is quite stable • We would like to make this draft a WG Document

More Related