1 / 7

draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-03.txt CCAMP – IETF 86 – Orlando March 2013

draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-03.txt CCAMP – IETF 86 – Orlando March 2013. Zafar Ali Clarence Filsfils Gabriele Maria Galimberti Ori Gerstel Kenji Kumaki Rüdiger Kunze George Swallow. Cisco Systems Cisco Systems Cisco Systems Cisco Systems KDDI Corporation

rafi
Download Presentation

draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-03.txt CCAMP – IETF 86 – Orlando March 2013

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-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-03.txtCCAMP – IETF 86 – OrlandoMarch 2013 Zafar Ali Clarence Filsfils Gabriele Maria Galimberti OriGerstel Kenji Kumaki RüdigerKunze George Swallow Cisco Systems Cisco Systems Cisco Systems Cisco Systems KDDI Corporation Deutsche Telekom AG Cisco Systems

  2. Overall Problem Space • A TE headendmay have no visibility across UNI or NNI boundarys • This draft is to allow such a headend to request commonality between paths NNI UNI-C UNI-N NNI UNI-N UNI-C

  3. Homogeneity and Fate-sharing draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route • Requirement is to have two LPSs to follow same route: • Fate Sharing. • Homogeneous Attributes: E.g., when LSPs are bundled together, it is often required that they have same delay and DV characteristics. • The ingress node requires certain nodes, links, or path of another LSP to be explicitly included • This derives, for instance, from an overall link diversity plan

  4. Homogeneity and Fate-sharing(2) NNI • Ingress node may lack sufficient topological knowledge • It there must form an ERO with loose hop(s) • It cannot divide those loose hop(s) into a proper sequence of strict or a sequence of finer-grained loose hops (e.g., in inter-domain and GMPLS overlay networks). UNI-C UNI-N NNI UNI-N UNI-C

  5. Homogeneity and Fate-sharing: Solution • Explicit Inclusion Route Subobject (EIRS) • A new ERO subobject type • Indicates an inclusion between a pair of explicit or abstract nodes • Encoding and processing rules are similar to Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) subobject of ERO defined in [RFC4874], (the exception being include vs. exclude semantics) • Subobjects supported by XRO/ EXRS are supported i.e., inclusion of links, nodes, tunnel / LSP, unnumbered interfaces, etc. In this draft, dropped SRLGs

  6. SRLG Issues • We naïvely incorporated all the subobjects of the XRO • Ran into difficulty writing the processing rules for SRLGs • A processing node may not be able to fully expand a loose hop an explicit ERO • In such an event it will need to insert another loose hop • What if any SRLGs should it include? • The authors do not find inclusion of an SRLG as needed functionality • Happy to entertain the opinions and processing rules that others may want to supply

  7. Next Steps • Authors consider draft mature enough to call for WG adoption

More Related