1 / 11

MS-PW Signaling draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

MS-PW Signaling draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt. Matthew Bocci, Mustapha Aissaoui, Jason Rusmisel, Alcatel Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp Nabil Bitar, Verizon Yetik Serbest, SBC. Why extend PW control?. Reuse existing PW signaling as far as possible

reynosoc
Download Presentation

MS-PW Signaling draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

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. MS-PW Signalingdraft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt Matthew Bocci, Mustapha Aissaoui, Jason Rusmisel, Alcatel Himanshu Shah, Ciena Corp Nabil Bitar, Verizon Yetik Serbest, SBC draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  2. Why extend PW control? • Reuse existing PW signaling as far as possible • Use a modified form of LDP – Downstream Unsolicited today • Lightweight protocol to minimize complexity in U-PE and S-PE • LDP already used for L2VPN applications • Tunnel and PW signalling are separate issues • PWs are not regular LSPs draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  3. Guiding Assumptions • Can’t assume U-PEs have full S-PE/U-PE reachability info • Signalling launched by downstream U-PE • For PWs, can’t know full path until label mapping has reached T-UPE • Informed selection of PW path by upstream U-PE who has service knowledge and view of network path/resources • L2VPN service depends on selection of underlying PW network resources • Each hop selects next hop, either: • Controlled path discovery (not flooding) • Blind path search (mandates “crankback”) • Crank back to the source vs. Hop-by hop crank back • Requires source routing to be effective, but don’t have full path info • Objective is to minimise crank back • Same forward and reverse path for OAM • Ability to auto-provision backup path draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  4. Overview of Solution • U-PEs / S-PEs establish T-LDP adjacencies to build PW overlay • U-PEs assume role as active or passive to initiate signaling • MS-PW TLV provides unique key to process MS-PW signaling • <SU-PE, MS-PW-ID, TU-PE> • Peer PW ID: backward compatibility, eliminates need for global PW id • MS-PW established through LDP by sending LM to one or more T-LDP peers in succeeding direction • Controlled path discovery enables T-UPE to choose path with full service knowledge (See later slides) • Intelligent choice of next S-PE through local policies, BGP or other topology information • Only TU-PE can retain multiple labels for backup paths • Unused labels at S-PEs are released immediately for already installed FEC • Release unused labels after primary/backup paths selected draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  5. MS-PW Requirements Addressed by Draft • Architecture • Enables intra and inter-domain PWs with partial tunnel mesh • Resiliency • Tunnel protection with standard PSN mechanisms • S-PE protection • Automatically creates a backup path • T-UPE can choose a backup path that is disjoint • Quality of Service and Class of Service • Supports signaling of PW traffic parameters • Supports forward and reverse CAC at PEs • Traffic Engineering • Next hop selection can be based on end to end knowledge (but not mandated) • MS-PW Setup Mechanisms. • PW Routing: supports both static and dynamic path selection • Can work in a mixed static / dynamic MS-PW environment • Operations and Maintenance (OAM) • Ensures forward/reverse directions take same path • Fully supports existing PW status messaging etc • Security • Supports security mechanisms applicable to LDP draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  6. Main Changes to PW Control • We went with controlled path discovery as opposed to crank-back to source to minimise changes to PW control • Needs concept of active/passive U-PE behaviour • Local impact only • Needs a few additional TLVs: • MS-PW TLV, QoS TLV • Label release if no resources available draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  7. Multi Segment PW – Controlled Path Discovery S-PE:4 S-PE:1 MS-PW FEC TU-PE SU-PE S-PE:2 S-PE:3 • SU-PE does not knowbest path to TU-PE • Downstream • Inter-AS draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  8. Multi Segment PW - Controlled Path Discovery FEC installed Forward/reverse CAC S-PE:4 S-PE:1 Label mappinglaunched to subset of S-PEs TU-PE SU-PE S-PE:2 S-PE:3 • Next hop choice based on: • IP Reachability • Local policy • Static config draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  9. Multi Segment PW - Controlled Path Discovery Unused labels released S-PEs may install one MH-PW FEC if multiplereceived based on e.g. policy S-PE:4 S-PE:1 TU-PE SU-PE S-PE:2 S-PE:3 draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  10. Multi Segment PW - Controlled Path Discovery TU-PE makes primary /backup path choice Uses LDP path trace toensure disjoint paths S-PE:4 S-PE:1 TU-PE SU-PE S-PE:2 S-PE:3 draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

  11. Multi Segment PW – Controlled Path Discovery S-PE:4 S-PE:1 TU-PE SU-PE S-PE:2 S-PE:3 Label mappings launchedin reverse directions S-Pes use bindings from MH-PW FEC draft-shah-bocci-pwe3-ms-pw-signaling-01.txt

More Related