1 / 11

Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowires draft-bryant-filsfils-fat-pw IETF-74

Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowires draft-bryant-filsfils-fat-pw IETF-74. {stbryant, cfilsfil}@cisco.com, Ulrich.Drafz@t-com.net, {vach.kompella. joe.regan}@alcatel-lucent.com, shane@castlepoint.net. Changes since last. Merged with draft-vkompella-pwe3-hash-label-00.txt

melba
Download Presentation

Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowires draft-bryant-filsfils-fat-pw IETF-74

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. Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowiresdraft-bryant-filsfils-fat-pwIETF-74 {stbryant, cfilsfil}@cisco.com, Ulrich.Drafz@t-com.net, {vach.kompella. joe.regan}@alcatel-lucent.com, shane@castlepoint.net

  2. Changes since last • Merged with draft-vkompella-pwe3-hash-label-00.txt • Major re-write with more technical detail • Significant introductory and applicability text discussing the benefits and issues associated with deployment. • Applies to ECMP and LAG case.

  3. Stack • Only one mode label at bottom of stack +-------------------------------+ | MPLS Tunnel label(s) | n*4 octets (four octets per label) +-------------------------------+ | PW label | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Flow label | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Optional Control Word | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Payload | | | | | n octets | | +-------------------------------+ FL MUST be greater than 15

  4. Signaling • Signal the presence of the flow label but not the flow label value. • No FL TLV means feature not supported (backwards compatibility) • Draft proposes that we optionally support FL from one end only (asymmetric config) – we propose to remove this from the next version.

  5. OAM • Basic test – single VCCV session sufficient • VCCV per FL scales poorly • PSN failure will be addressed by IGP • LFIB can be tested using draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test • Trouble shoot using RFC4378 & RFC4379

  6. Router Alert +-------------------------------+ | MPLS Tunnel label(s) | n*4 octets (four octets per label) +-------------------------------+ | Router Alert label | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | PW label | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Flow label | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Optional Control Word | 4 octets +-------------------------------+ | Payload | | | | | n octets | | +-------------------------------+

  7. Applicability • Large divisible flows only (for example IIP traffic) • ECMP networks • LAGs

  8. Single Large Flows • Five options to the operator • No nothing (the case today) • Tell the customer that the flow will be policed • Same flow label for ALL high b/w flows (only hits one path) • Random label to high b/w flows (out of order delivery, but less n/w pain) • Special (not reserved) label (out of scope)

  9. Questions • Need to look at TTL text • Should we remove the option to run without a control word

  10. Changes in the next version • It’s really Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS PSN • A bunch of nits and typos • Revert to fully symmetric operation only.

  11. WG Draft • There is significant interest in this technology. • Should not wait for for MPLS generalized version (the pkt format is the same, the signaling will be different) • Orthogonal to the PW-bonding proposal • The authors request that the draft be accepted as a WG draft.

More Related