1 / 11

RSVP-TE Path Diversity using Exclude Routes draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity- 04.txt

Gabriele Maria Galimberti Cisco Systems Ori Gerstel SDN Solutions Ltd. Matt Hartley Cisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation Rüdiger Kunze Deutsche Telekom AG Lieven Levrau Alcatel-Lucent Cyril Margaria Julien Meuric France Telecom Orange Yuji Tochio Fujitsu

damisi
Download Presentation

RSVP-TE Path Diversity using Exclude Routes draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity- 04.txt

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. Gabriele Maria Galimberti Cisco Systems OriGerstelSDN Solutions Ltd. Matt Hartley Cisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation RüdigerKunze Deutsche Telekom AG LievenLevrau Alcatel-Lucent Cyril Margaria JulienMeuric France Telecom Orange Yuji TochioFujitsu Xian Zhang Huawei Technologies RSVP-TE Path Diversity using Exclude Routesdraft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-04.txt Zafar Ali (editor) Cisco Systems George Swallow (editor) Cisco Systems - Presenter Fatai Zhang (editor) Huawei Technologies Dieter Beller(editor) Alcatel-Lucent Igor Bryskin ADVA Optical Networking Daniele Ceccarelli Ericsson DhruvDhody Huawei Technologies Oscar Gonzalez de Dios TelefonicaI+D Don FedykHewlett-Packard Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Xihua Fu ZTE 89th IETF, CCAMP WG, Toronto, Canada (July 2014)

  2. Background • In London the chairs asked the authors of the following drafts to meet and see if they could work out their differences • draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-03 • draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-01.txt • draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-04 • After two meetings, we agreed to accept each others’ methods • Between then and now there was much email exchange and editing

  3. My perspective • The IP / Optical environment is much more vendor diverse than either the IP or Optical environments themselves • Various vendors will build what they need to control their piece(s) • Our systems may be stitched together in many ways • To serve the market we need to play well together

  4. The merger • A single vehicle for passing diversity information will be used, thus: • A new diversity XRO subobject is defined • Sub-subobjects will carry the reference for exclusion with one of these forms of identification: • Client Initiated Identifier • PCE Allocated Identifier • Network Allocated Identifier

  5. Next Steps • Authors would like to request WG feedback.

  6. Thank You.

  7. Backup / Reference

  8. Diversity XRO subobject Encoding 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type |Attribute Flags|Exclusion Flags| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLVs ... | // // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • The L-flag is used as per [RFC4874], i.e., mandatory or best-effort exclusion. • The following types of TLVs are defined: • IPv4/ IPv6 tunnel identifier TLV (client initiated identifier). • IPv4/ IPv6 Path Key TLV (PCE allocated identifier) • IPv4/ IPv6 Path Affinity Set (network allocated identifier) • Attribute and exclusion flags are equally applicable to all TLVs.

  9. IPv4 P2P tunnel identifier TLV • This is a client initiated identifier encoded as RSVP-TE FEC. • An IPv6 equivalent TLV is also defined (type 2) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 1 | Length = 24 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 tunnel end point address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 tunnel sender address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | LSP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  10. IPv4 Path Key TLV • This is a PCE allocated identifier carrying the Path Key. • An IPv6 equivalent TLV is also defined(type 4) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 3| Length = 12 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | Path Key | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PCE ID (4 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  11. IPv4 Path Affinity Set TLV • This is a network allocated identifier encoded using the PAS identifier. • An IPv6 equivalent TLV is also defined (type 6) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 5| Length = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Affinity Set identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Path Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Path Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

More Related