1 / 5

GMPLS Extension Requirements for Virtual Concatenation and Link Aggregation Control

GMPLS Extension Requirements for Virtual Concatenation and Link Aggregation Control. Wataru Imajuku (imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp) Yukio Tsukishima (tsukishima.yukio@lab.ntt.co.jp) Young Hwa Kim (yhwkim@etri.re.kr). Summary of Requirements. Basic requirement is to facilitate

brendan-wagner
Download Presentation

GMPLS Extension Requirements for Virtual Concatenation and Link Aggregation Control

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. GMPLS Extension Requirements for Virtual Concatenation and Link Aggregation Control Wataru Imajuku (imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp) Yukio Tsukishima (tsukishima.yukio@lab.ntt.co.jp) Young Hwa Kim (yhwkim@etri.re.kr) 63rd IETF Paris August 2005

  2. Summary of Requirements • Basic requirement is to facilitate Link capacity control using GMPLS control plane • OTN (ITU-T G.709) control • SDH/SONET (ITU-T G.707) control • Link aggregation (IEEE803.ad) control • Carrier requirements • Resilient capacity control against L2/L3 traffic surge • Enhance reliability of L2/L3 link using diversity • Increase efficiency of • Support not only from NTT, but also from DT • Other possible uses • Flexible resource partitioning or sharing under L1VPN framework [L1VPN] draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-04.txt • Detailed description about the necessity of extension and requirements can be found in this draft. 63rd IETF Paris August 2005

  3. Ingress Egress GMPLS (Add Upstream bandwidth) Sk So ADD MST=OK CTRL=EOS ADD MST=OK CTRL=EOS CTRL=NRM Discussion Point in -00.txt • Why coordination between LCAS and GMPLS is necessary? • LCAS enables hitless VCn-v addition or removal to/from a group LSP. • LCAS incorporates uni-directional control that requires Admin Status likecontrol for LCAS initiation. • Requirements (Chapter 4) • Requirements for routing protocol extension (Chapter 4.1) • Extension to represent LSP termination capability in GMPLS-TE • Requirements for signaling protocol extension (Chapter 4.2) • LSP Group ID in Call ID Object ? Or Association ID Object? • Admin Status like control to initiate LCAS signaling • FA-consideration (Chapter 5) • Guideline when a group LSP is treated as Forwarding Adjacency. GMPLS Signaling Signaling in overhead 63rd IETF Paris August 2005

  4. Remaining Issues • What should the requirements be for routing extensions ? • Routing extensions enable smooth migration amongst GFP/LCAS/VCAT capable and non-capable nodes. • Some comments negative to define termination capability on the mailing list, but not all vendors support VCAT capability (yet). • Consideration of other constraints. • Ex. Sequence constraint • VC-n-xv removal at Ingress, then Egress removal after the confirmation • Define terminology • Ex. Diego’s question • What is a single LSP ? • Single signaling session or concatenated (aggregated) tunnel ? • But, some people opposed to say that in the mailing list. • Need for a security section 63rd IETF Paris August 2005

  5. Next Step • Charter milestones • Revised by next (64th) IETF meeting • WG charter in 65th IETF meeting • Authors plans and commitments • Seek feedback from carrier’s (DT to be added as co-author) • Add descriptions for OTN and Ether control • Split into mandatory and optional requirements • Add other constraint considerations, if any. • Specific requests: • Comments and close interworking with laison to ITU-T SG15/Q11. • Implementation status • None, but many vendors have already implemented to control virtually concatenated VC-n’s under the GMPLS-control plane. • Request comment and discussion in the mailing list • Need discussion on terminology definition • Need more discussion on routing extensions 63rd IETF Paris August 2005

More Related