1 / 9

A Framework for Service-Driven Co-Routed MPLS TE LSPs

A Framework for Service-Driven Co-Routed MPLS TE LSPs. draft-li-mpls-serv-driven-co-lsp-fmwk-00. Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang , Jie Dong ( Huawei ) IETF85 Nov. 2012 Atlanta. Massive Configuration Issue of TE LSP.

nanda
Download Presentation

A Framework for Service-Driven Co-Routed MPLS TE LSPs

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. A Framework for Service-Driven Co-Routed MPLS TE LSPs draft-li-mpls-serv-driven-co-lsp-fmwk-00 Zhenbin Li, ShunwanZhuang, Jie Dong (Huawei) IETF85 Nov. 2012 Atlanta

  2. Massive Configuration Issue of TE LSP • Large Network with a lot of MPLS-TE Tunnels requires massive configuration work. The operation is not only time consuming but also prone to mis-configuration for Service Providers.

  3. Return Path Issue of BFD for LSP RNC/SGW/MME Last Mile Access Aggregation • When BFD for LSP is deployed, the return path may take an IP path which is different from the forwarding path. • Failure happens in the return path may trigger wrong traffic switching. BTS/Node B IGP process1 BSC IGP process 2 TDM IMA ETH STM-1 STM-1 Node B FE GE ATM RNC RSG CSG GE Return Path IP RNC/S-GW/MME

  4. Upgrading Issue of Co-routed Bidirectional LSP RNC/SGW/MME Last Mile Access Aggregation • The unidirectional MPLS TE LSP has been widely deployed and it is difficult for service providers to upgrade all possible routers to support co-routed bidirectional LSPs. BTS/Node B BSC STM-1 TDM IMA ETH STM-1 Node B ATM RNC GE FE GE CSG RSG IP RNC/S-GW/MME

  5. Service-driven Co-routed MPLS TE LSP • LDP LSP: Topology-Driven LSP. LSPs can setup automatically, which save much effort and achieve higher scalability. • MPLS TE LSP: • Depends heavily on static configuration though some auto-configuration method ( e.g. auto mesh ) is proposed. • Has close relation with services transported. Service-driven is a natural way to setup LSP on demand. • BGP-based MVPN is an example of service-driven tunnel. After the root node and leaf nodes of MVPN are discovered, P2MP TE tunnel is triggered. • Service-Driven method is introduced to setup co-routed MPLS TE LSP

  6. Service-Driven Co-Routed Unidirectional LSPs for L2VPN Tunnel Signaled Tunnel Information Active PE PE1 Passive PE PE2 RNC/SGW/MME Last Mile Access Aggregation BTS/Node B E2E PWE3 BSC TDM IMA ETH STM-1 STM-1 FE GE Node B ATM RNC Scenarios CSG RSG GE Procedures Active/passive role election IP RNC/S-GW/MME PE1's PW drives RSVP-TE to Create TE LSP: LSP1 PE2 waits for Tunnel info advertised from PE1 MPLS TE LSP setup from PE1 to PE2 PE1 advertises LSP1 Tunnel info to PE2 through PW signaling PE2 gets forward Tunnel info from PE1, Create TE LSP (eg. LSP2) according to RRO information of LSPl, Binds LSP1 and LSP2 for PW; MPLS TE LSP setup from PE2 to PE1 PE2 advertises LSP2 Tunnel info to PE1 PE1 binds LSP1 and LSP2 for PW; Co-routed TE LSP Established

  7. Service-Driven Co-Routed Unidirectional LSPs for L3VPN Tunnel Signaled Tunnel Information Active PE PE1 Passive PE PE2 Last Mile Access Aggregation RNC/SGW/MME BTS/Node B E2E L3VPN BSC TDM IMA ETH STM-1 FE GE STM-1 Node B ATM RNC Scenarios CSG RSG GE 0. VPN Membership Auto-Discovery Procedures IP RNC/S-GW/MME Active/passive role election PE1's L3VPN drives RSVP-TE to Create TE LSP: LSP1 PE2 waits for Tunnel info advertised from PE1 MPLS TE LSP setup from PE1 to PE2 PE1 advertises LSP1 Tunnel info to PE2 through L3VPN signaling PE2 gets forward Tunnel info from PE1, Create TE LSP (eg. LSP2) according to RRO information of LSPl, Binds LSP1 and LSP2 for L3VPN; MPLS TE LSP setup from PE2 to PE1 PE2 advertises LSP2 Tunnel info to PE1 PE1 binds LSP1 and LSP2 for L3VPN; Co-routed TE LSP Established

  8. Summary • Service-driven co-routed TE LSP has following advantages: • Setup LSPs on demand and save massive configuration effort • Reuse existing mechanism instead of whole network upgrading

  9. Next Steps • More scenarios will be taken into account • Get comments on mailing list • Welcome contributions to this work

More Related