1 / 11

Technology agnostic OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS

draft-bccgd-ccamp-gmpls-opsf-agnostic-00 CCAMP WG, IETF 79 th Beijing. Technology agnostic OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS. Authors/Contributors. Sergio Belotti (sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com) Diego Caviglia (diego.caviglia@ericsson.com)

nailah
Download Presentation

Technology agnostic OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS

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. draft-bccgd-ccamp-gmpls-opsf-agnostic-00 CCAMP WG, IETF 79th Beijing Technology agnostic OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS

  2. Authors/Contributors • Sergio Belotti (sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com) • Diego Caviglia (diego.caviglia@ericsson.com) • Daniele Ceccarelli (daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com) • John Drake (jdrake@juniper.net) • Francesco Fondelli (francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com) • Pietro Grandi (pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.com) • Dan Li (danli@huawei.com) • Lyndon Ong (Lyong@Ciena.com) • Jonathan Sadler (Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com) • Eve Varma (eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com) • Fatai Zhang (zhangfatai@huawei.com)

  3. Agenda • General agreement • Purpose of the document • Bandwidth Accounting sub-TLV • Example • Improvements • Next steps

  4. General Agreement • Agreement among authors/contributors • Extension to encoding in RFC4202 • Bandwidth advertisement per signal type • Field for distinction between Unreserved Bandwidth and Max LSP bandwidth advertisement • Priority support

  5. Purpose of the ID • Defining an tool: • Advertising bandwidth per signal type • Technology agnostic • Future proof • Scalable • Minimizing recovery time: poor routing is often cause of crank-backs • The Bandwidth Accounting sub-TLV is the building blockfor technology specific extensions and enhancements not the solution. • Technology specific documents can improve the BA sub-TLV in order to gain scalability, efficiency etc.

  6. The root of the tree Technology Agnostic ID draft-bccgd-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-agnostic Bandwidth Accounting sub-TLV OTN specific ID draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709 SDH specific ID draft-ong-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-sdh MPLS-TP specific ID wip

  7. Bandwidth Accounting - SubTLV • Service Type: e.g. VC4, ODU2, ODUflex • M field: • 0 - Unreserved Bandwidth • 1 - Max LSP bandwidth • 2-3 Technology specific (e.g. Available bandwidth for MPLS-TP: unused link bandwidth available for additional non-traffic engineered IP/LDP forwarding and can be used as input to a node’s equal cost multipath load balancing function”) • T.S. Flags: Technology specific flags to be defined in technology specific documents: e.g. Tributary Slot dimension, • Priority: 8 GMPLS priorities • Bandwidth @ Priority: Byte/sec in IEEE floating point unless differently specified (e.g. OTN number of Service Types)

  8. Example A LC #1–10G-A,B B LC #2–40G-B,C • Supported priorities • 0,3 • Link comp #1 (10Gbps) • Stype: A fixed • Stype: B variable • Link comp #1 (10Gbps) • Stype: C fixed • Stype: B variable • Multiple variable service stype can be advertised

  9. Improvements • Bandwidth Efficiency – Priority bitmap

  10. Next steps • Collect feedbacks from the meeting • Continue collecting feedbacks from the ML • Work on technology specific documents upon WG consensus • OTN • SDH • MPLS-TP • WG document?

  11. QUESTIONS ? THANK YOU

More Related