300 likes | 417 Views
CCAMP WG of the 58 th IETF Meeting. Jun-Hyun, Moon Computer Communications LAB., Kawangwoon University imp@kw.ac.kr. Agenda. Time available 150 minutes New charter Working Group Drafts Interactions with other WGs ITU-T Liaison Charter Work GMPLS MIB Protection and Restoration
E N D
CCAMP WG of the 58th IETF Meeting Jun-Hyun, Moon Computer Communications LAB., Kawangwoon University imp@kw.ac.kr
Agenda • Time available 150 minutes • New charter • Working Group Drafts • Interactions with other WGs • ITU-T Liaison • Charter Work • GMPLS MIB • Protection and Restoration • ASON Signaling Requirements • ASON Routing Requirements • Tunneling Protocol • Multi-Area/AS/Region
New Charter • Old Charter • Basic groundwork and protocols complete • New work items • Multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes, and multiple providers, including techniques for crankback • Signaling and routing ASON • Determine the actual route and other properties of paths set by CCAMP signaling protocols
Working Group Drafts • New RFC • RFC 3609 Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels • RFC queue • Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Architecture (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-07.txt) • Blocked by all GMPLS and LMP drafts • Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture) • Blocked by draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture • LMP (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt)
Working Group Drafts (cont.) • In IESG review after Last Call • Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt) • OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt) • In IETF Last Call (Ends 2003/11/24) • LMP-WDM (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-02.txt) • SONET/SDH Encoding for LMP Test messages (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-03.txt) • Pending AD review • LMP MIB (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-07.txt) • Framework for GMPLS-based Control of SDH/SONET Networks (draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-02.txt
Working Group Drafts (cont.) • Work still in progress • No comment in this meeting • WG last call soon • GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt) • Generalized MPLS Singnaling Extension for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-04.txt) • New revision soon • Exclude Routes – Extension to RSVP-TE (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt) • Discussion in this meeting • ASON requirements (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt) • Protection and Recovery drafts • GMPLS MIBs
Interactions with Other WGs • TEWG • Multi-area/AS requirements (draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req) • Please review and use when developing solutions • MPLS • Point-to-multipoint LSPs (draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-requirement) • Requirements and solutions include all switching types • OSPF/IS-IS • GMPLS extensions “complete” • May interact for solutions to ASON routing requirements • IPO • IP over Optical Networks : A Freamework (draft-ietf-ipo-framework) • Just completing IESG review
ITU-T Study Group 15Communications to IETF CCAMP Working Group Wesam Alanqar ITU-T SG15 Representative to IETF CCAMP Wesam.Alanqar@mial.sprint.com
Management Framework Discovery Architecture G.disc_arch G.fame Auto- discovery Initialization & Recovery Signaling Routing DCN/SCN G.7714 G.7716 G.7713 G.7715 G.7712 Protocol New Requirement (Detailed) G.7715.1 G.7714.1 G.7713.1 G.7713.2 Protocol Specification G.7713.3 ITU-T SG 15, Question 14 ASON Control & Management Recommendations ITU-T Q14/15 – Optical Control Plane
Liaison Statement To IETF CCAMP on RSVP-TE and CR-LDP • ITU Question 14 of Study Group 15 thanks IETF for the liaison notifying us of the survey taken of implementers of GMPLS constrained LSP signaling. • As Recommendation G.7713.3 is currently in force, we will continue to have a normative reference to CR-LDP [RFC 3212] • Your liaison has raised a concern regarding on-going maintenance of the CR-LDP code point space. We expect that future requests for code points in the range allocated to CR-LDP (0x0800 to 0x08FF) in [RFC 3212] will be granted based on “IETF Consensus” as defined in RFC 2434.
ASON Updates • SG 15 has consented G.7715.1/Y.1706.1 “ASON Routing Architecture and requirements for Link State protocols” • This Recommendation provides architecture and requirement for a link state realization of G.7715/Y.1706 and G.8080/Y.1304 and is protocol neutral. • This may be of assistance to the ASON Routing Requirements design team. • There were no changes made to Discovery Recommendations. • However, new issues were included in the G.7714 living list such as an Interoperable solution for ECC based discovery mechanisms. • Question 9 of SG15 is assessing G.7714.1 discovery methods in the context of the existing equipment Recommendation G.783.
Protection and Restoratoin • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-02.txt • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt
Terminology draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-02.txt March’ 02 March’ 02 (closed) – PS for July’ 03 (closed) Analysis draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt March’ 02 Jan’ 03 (closed) – Info for June’ 03 (closed) Functional Specification draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt Jan’ 03 (closed) – PS for April’ 03 (closed) July’ 02 Aug’ 02 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt GMPLS RSVP-TE Specification Mar’ 03 (closed) – PS for July’ 03 (tbd) Effort Positioning, Status and Timing……
Mechanisms covered by the Signaling I-d • Recovery Scope : end-2-end • Coverage : (failure detection => sd or sf) • LSP Protection : full LSP signaling (cross-connection) b/f failure occurrence • (Pre-planned) Re-routing (w/ shared re-routing as particular case) : pre-signaling b/f failure + LSP activation after failure – allows for low priority • LSP Dynamic Re-routing (a.k.a restoration) : full LSP signaling after failure occurrence • Notification message (and objects) <= from RFC 3473 • Two objects described : • Protection Object (C-Type 2) <=extends RFC 3473 • Primary Path Route Object (New object) : shared recovery
Extra-Traffic LSP issue • Advertisement : To make bandwidth pre-reserved for protecting (not activate) LSP(s) available for extra-traffic => this bandwidth may be included in the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV at priority lower the protecting LSP Setup Priority • Note : Max LSP Bandwidth in Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV should reflect that bandwidth pre-reserved for protecting LSP(s) is available for extra-traffic
Extra-Traffic LSP issue (cont.) • Signaling : LSPs for extra traffic established using bandwidth pre-reserved for protecting LSP(s) by setting SESSION_ATTRIBUTE • Setup Priority = X (Setup Priority of the protecting LSP) • Holding Priority = at least to X + 1 • Note : if resources pre-reserved for the protecting LSP are used by lower priority LSPs. These LSPs MUST be preempted when the protecting LSP is activated.
Terminology draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-02.txt Analysis draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt Functional Specification draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt GMPLS RSVP-TE Specification 3q’ 03 (first phase closed) What is the Next Step? • Commit the Signaling I-d as a WG document • Perform thorough revision of the document(s) • Dec’ 03 submit documents to IESG
ASON Signaling Requirements • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-03.txt • draft-ong-ccamp-3473-3474-iw-00.txt • draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-07.txt
Outline - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt • brief review of problem statement & requirements for GMPLS signaling extensions for ASON • You read the draft • changes from 01 to 04 version • next steps
Problem Statement forGMPLS Extensions for ASON • problem statement • extend GMPLS signaling [RFC 3417/RFC 3437] • must meet FULL functional requirements of ASON architecture in GMPLS • Provide call & connection management [G.7713] • must be BACKWARD COMPATIBLE with current GMPLS RFCs • ASON architecture includes • automated control plane supporting both call & connection management [G.8080] • control plane applicable to different transport technologies (e.g., SDH/SONET, OTN) & networking environments (e.g., inter-carrier, intra-carrier) • multiple reference points of information exchange • between administrative domain & user • between administrative domain & areas within administrative domain • between controllers within areas
Requirements forGMPLS Extensions for ASON • need to support ASON functionality in GMPLS • soft permanent connection capability • call & connection separation (includes calls without connections & adding/removing connections to/from calls) • call segment • extended restart capabilities during control plane failures • extended label association • crankback capability • additional error cases
Changes from 01 to 04 Version • Introduction • refine reference point terminology (UNI, E-NNI, I-NNI) • ASON model distinguishes reference points (representing point of protocol information exchange) • between an administrative domain & a user a.k.a user network interface (UNI) • between an administrative domains a.k.a external network-network interface (E-NNI) • between areas of the same administrative domain & between controllers within areas a.k.a internal network-network interface (I-NNI) • Terminology section. add UNI term • review of author list
Changes form 01 to 04 Version • Section 4 Requirements for Extending Applicability of GMPLS to ASON • Definition of GMPLS [RFC 3473] compliant UNI • ‘any User-Network Interface (UNI) that is compliant with [RFC 3437] is considered, by definition, to be a GMPLS UNI and must be supported’ • [GMPLS-OVERLAY] & [GMPLS-VPN] meet definition of GMPLS UNI • refine agnosticism criteria wrt UNI implementation for GMPLS support of ASON requirements • ‘support of GMPLS-ASON signaling protocol requirements must be strictly independent of & agnostic to any UNI & not be constrained by implementation specifics of the UNI [G.8080, G.7713]’
Changes form 01 to 04 Version • refine interworking aspects of non-GMPLS address space/signaling mapping • end-to-end signaling should be facilitated regardless of administrative boundaries & protocols within the network • includes both GMPLS control domains & non-GMPLS control domains • I-D addresses ASON support within a GMPLS controls domain & between GMPLS control domains • I-D does not restrict use to other protocols within a control domain • mapping of non-GMPLS protocol signaling requests & support of non-GMPLS address formats are responsibility of non-GMPLS control domain
Next Steps • no open issues at this point • authors feel this I-D is ready for WG last call • draft-left-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt • progress GMPLS signaling extensions for ASON • Progress GMPLS routing requirements & protocol extensions for ASON
Overview – draft-ong-ccamp-3473-3474-iw-00.txt • RFCs 3473 and 3474 • Multiple implementations exist and have been tested • 3474 represents an ITU-T standard(G.7713.2) • Draft explains interworking (at a high level) • Specifics are in the draft • More detail and clarifications to be added • Where does this fit? • Is it an IETF activity (Yes! IETF RFCs are the subject) • If so, is it CCAMP (Up to this group) • How does this relate to ASON extension work for GMPLS?
3474 Concepts • Overlay or multiple domain model • Client interface (overlay) • Exterior network-network interfaces (between domains) • Client address space (TNA) • Separate address space and format • Call-ID and related information • Carried transparently across intermediate nodes • Multi-session RSVP • End-to-end connection stitched together from multiple tunnels
3474 Concepts – Multi-session RSVP • Multiple tunnels stitched together • Tunnel within each domain • Tunnels connecting domains (including UNI) • Functions such as restoration may be bounded by tunnel span other domain 3473 domain
Conclusion • Develop 3473-to-3474 interworking draft • Open for comments • Is it a CCAMP item? (at least CCAMP review) • As a separate informational document? • Work with 3474 when defining ASON extensions to GMPLS • Identify where there may be real open issues in 3474 • (e.g. ResvErr/ResvTear treatment) • Converge rather than diverge • Simplify rather than complicate interworking
Other draft • Communicaton of Alarms • draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt • Generized MPLS Signaling for Layer-2 LSPs • draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-00.txt • Component Link Recording and Resource Control for GMPLS Link Bundles • draft-zamfir-exmplicit-resource-control-bundle-02.txt