90 likes | 167 Views
UNI Extensions for Diversity and Latency Support. draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-04. IETF 89 – CCAMP WG. Don Fedyk Don.Fedyk@hp.com Dieter Beller Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com Lieven Levrau Lieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.com Daniele Ceccerelli Daniele.Ceccarelli@ericsson.com
E N D
UNI Extensions for Diversityand Latency Support • draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-04 IETF 89 – CCAMP WG Don FedykDon.Fedyk@hp.com Dieter Beller Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com LievenLevrauLieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.com Daniele CeccerelliDaniele.Ceccarelli@ericsson.com Fatai ZhangZhangFatai@huawei.com Yuji TochioTochio@jp.fujitsu.com Xihua Fu Fu.Xihua@zte.com.cn IETF 89 London
Agenda • Updates from 03 to 04 version • New section dealing with diversity aspects in a multi-domain environment where some domains are utilizing a PCE. • Operational procedure details • Next steps IETF 89 London
Updates from 02 to 03 version • Diversity part for dual-homed CEs: • New section on compatibility with PCE added: • Compatibility of domains using distributed routing and path computation with domains using the centralized PCE approach • Solution for PCE domains is based on draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-01.txt • Latency part: • No updates • Draft fairly stable IETF 89 London
Operational procedure details • Combined solution where signaling and constraint-based path computation is involved: • Signaling: • Carrying diversity constraints for the LSP being established(to ensure that the LSP is diverse w.r.t. another LSP) • Collecting diversity information for the LSP that can be passed onfor establishing a diverse routed LSP (SRLG Lists or “cookies”) • Path computation: • Done locally at the ingress node of a domain • Done by a centralized PCE (ingress node sends a PCEP requestto the PCE) • Diversity constraints are provided explicitly (list of SRLG IDs) or indirectly in form of a key (PAS or path key in case of PCE) • Constraints are taken into account when a path is calculated from ingress to egress of the domain IETF 88 CCAMP WG @ Vancouver
Single domain diversity use caseDistributed routing and path comp. LSP1 SRLG_IDs(LSP1) PC PE1 P P PE SRLG_IDs(LSP2) CE CE LSP2 PC PE2 P P PE SRLG_IDs(LSP1) Exchange of SRLG ID list for disjoint LSPs via source CE node IETF 89 London
Single domain diversity use caseDomain with a PCE PCE LSP1 Pathkey(LSP1) Pathkey(LSP1) PE1 P P PE Pathkey(LSP2) CE CE LSP2 Pathkey(LSP2) PE2 P P PE Pathkey(LSP1) Exchange of Pathkey for disjoint LSPs via source CE node IETF 89 London
Mixed multi-domain diversity use caseDiversity information scoped to domains Div_Info(LSP1) = [domain_SO(DA), SRLG_IDs(DA)],[domain_SO(DB), Pathkey_SO(DB)],[domain_SO(DD), PAS_SO(DB)] Domain C sub-object Domain D sub-object Domain B Domain A sub-object PCE PE Domain D PE Domain A PE Div_info(LSP1) PE PE PE CE CE PE PE Domain C PCE PE PE PE PE Div_Info(LSP2) Domain C sub-object IETF 89 London
Next Steps • Solicit feedback/comments from the group • Work with authors of the related diversity drafts trying to come up with a single solution applicableto all use cases/scenarios. • WG adoption not intended right now due to the previous point. • Ensure that the overlay framework draft includes the use cases for which this drafts describes solutions. IETF 89 London
Thank You! IETF 89 London