50 likes | 194 Views
GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling in support of ASON. draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt J.Drake (Calient) - D.Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - A.Farrel (Old Dog Consulting) - D.Brungard (ATT) - Z.Ali (Cisco). Guidelines for this I-d. Backward/Forward compatibility with GMPLS RFC’s (RFC 3471/73)
E N D
GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling in support of ASON draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt J.Drake (Calient) - D.Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - A.Farrel (Old Dog Consulting) - D.Brungard (ATT) - Z.Ali (Cisco)
Guidelines for this I-d • Backward/Forward compatibility with GMPLS RFC’s (RFC 3471/73) • Independence between UNI and (E-)NNI (agnosticism) • Interworking (at UNI and/or (E-)NNI) must be impact free on GMPLS RFC’s • Only define new objects and procedures when strictly needed (max re-use principle)
Changes from version -00.txt • Added Appendix 1 following comment at IETF 57 and discussion on list • Provides detailed analysis of Info RFC’s 3474/ 76 wrt ASON requirements & RFC 3473 compatibility • Concludes that Info RFC’s 3474/76 • are not backward compatible w/ RFC 3473 • intra-domain: RFC 3474/76 not compatible w/ RFC 3473 • inter-domain: RFC 3474/76 (E-NNI/UNI) requires IWFs for RFC 3473 domains and are limited to single hop sessions • lack support for multiple requirements
Requirements vs Info RFC 3474/76 vs Proposal Requirements Info RFC 3474/76 Proposal Soft Permanent Connection Yes (SPC_Label (*)) Yes (RFC 3473) e2e Capability Negotiation No Yes Call w/o Connection setup No (*) Yes Call w/ (single) Connection setup Yes (limited to single hop sessions (*)) Yes Multiple Connection per Call (add/remove) No Yes Call Segments No Yes Restart (CP failures) Limited (*) Yes Crankback Signaling No Ongoing Backward Compatibility No (see (*)) Yes
Conclusion & Next Steps • Info RFC’s 3474/76 are not backward compatible with GMPLS RFC 3473 • Info RFC’s 3474/76 are not sufficient => Use this I-d as baseline to provide a “backward compatible and more complete solution” in support of ASON