1 / 6

Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks

This document discusses the use of addresses in GMPLS networks, including new material and open issues. It also provides an outline of the document's focus and highlights changes made since IETF 63.

rcandace
Download Presentation

Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks

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. Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-02 Kohei Shiomoto: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Rajiv Papneja: rpapneja@isocore.com Richard Rabbat: richard@us.fujitsu.com

  2. Outline • Identify new material • Raise open issues • Will we see more issues or are we done? • Discussion of how this document should be focused

  3. Changes since IETF 63 • New section 7.1.4 on Label subobject in RRO • Label recording flag in Path, not Resv. • Clarification with respect “mirror procedure” • Label Record objects in Resv if the flag is in Path. • New section 9 on RSVP Hello • Clarified action for (A) recovery state, (B) waiting/non-waiting state • Clearly state “to ignore Recovery Time value” except for during restart period since Recovery Time is only meaningful during restart period. • Clearly state that during the waiting period for the graceful restart, the Dst_Instance values in all Hello messages MUST be set to zero • Section 5.2.3 on Extended tunnel ID was moved to a separate draft (id hierarchy-bis) • Reorganized some sections for clarity • Draft finally stabilized as "Standards Track“ • Chairs consulted with ADs: language 2119 in it, so cannot be informational or BCP

  4. Experience from the Addressing Draft Fall Test Effort At Isocore • First compliance verification testing carried out at Isocore in October 2005 • Agreement on common addressing scheme and control plane tunneling techniques • In the test, we used P2P OSPF control plane connectivity (GRE) • Both numbered and unnumbered TE links • LMP testing was partially done • No issues to report now

  5. Experience from the Addressing DraftTest Coverage – Current Status • Test Sections: Covered • Section 5:Numbered Addressing • IGP addressing • Addresses in RSVP-TE • Section 7:RSVP-TE message content • ERO/RRO Addressing • Section 8: Control Channel Separation • Tunneled control plane only – GRE • Test Section: Partially covered • Section 6: Unnumbered addressing • Test Sections: Not yet covered • Section 7: RSVP-TE message content • Sections 7.2, 7.3 • Section 9: Use of RSVP Hellos • Section 10: Addresses in the MPLS and GMPLS TE MIB Modules

  6. Points to address in this forum (bis) • Raised open issues • Will we see more issues or are we done? • We need to finish tests • Discussion of how this document should be focused

More Related