90 likes | 172 Views
Y.1711 & LSP-PING draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt PWE3_WG@IETF 56. Dave Allan Nortel Networks. Motivations. Highlight the complementary nature of Y.1711 and LSP-PING Draft is purely informational. Y.1711. General attributes
E N D
Y.1711 & LSP-PING draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt PWE3_WG@IETF 56 Dave Allan Nortel Networks draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Motivations • Highlight the complementary nature of Y.1711 and LSP-PING • Draft is purely informational draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Y.1711 • General attributes • Minimalist MPLS specific protocol designed for proactive fault detection (no diagnostic capability) • Egress defect detection paradigm • Minimal dependencies on “non-LSP” components • Maximize determinism • “I can detect that fault in three transactions” • Primarily an edge function • Gains functionality if core implements fault notification • Outcomes are “pass/fail”, “what to do” and “where to start looking” draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Y.1711 Status • Nov 2002 Recommendation • Focus on P2P LSPs, no PHP • CV (heartbeat), FDI (forward), BDI (backward) defect notifications • Specifies defect states and consequent actions draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Y.1711 PWE3 Implications • Egress detection paradigm combined with defect notification simplifies interworking (both overlay/network and peer/service) • AIS/RDI/LMI etc. • As this is for MPLS, hierarchy is supported • Can reduce “chattyness” required to detect PW/PSN faults • Defect notification facilitates alarm suppression • For both PSN and PW clients • Data plane defect notification mechanisms reduce control plane load • Don’t need to withdraw PW labels to say something is wrong. draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Y.1711 New Work • FEC-CV for LDP/MP2P/BGP etc. • Adds “bloom filter” to CV to encode FEC info. as a bit string (128 bit) • Functions as an application independent “fingerprint” • Extensible via defining coding rules for new applications • Actual message handling is unchanged • Initial focus was misbranching detection • Any into any (LDP/BGP/RSVP/PWs etc.) • Current proposals relate to LDP availability • Plug & play as PW FEC can be bound to PE ingress point dynamically draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
LSP-PING • UDP/IP protocol • Ping/traceroute paradigm • Augmented with FEC information • Good for CLI/craftsperson invocation • Achieves this by having lots of non-LSP dependencies • Results of any one transaction are indeterminate • Good diagnostic capability • Traceroute and downstream mapping functions permit currently deployed networks to be “characterized” • But difficult to scale for proactive detection draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
Conclusion • Y.1711 and LSP-PING are complementary in philosophy and design… • Y.1711 is a first line detection tool • LSP-PING has most utility as a diagnostic tool • Both have a place in an overall operational framework. draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt
For Further Reference • ITU-T Recommedation Y.1711 (2002) “OAM Mechanism for MPLS Networks” • draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-02.txt • For FEC-CV specifically http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/y.1711_fec_cv_public.pdf OR http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/y.1711_fec_cv_public.ppt draft-allan-y1711-and-lsp-ping-00.txt