1 / 5

draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording- 03. txt CCAMP – IETF 85 Atlanta - Nov 2012

draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording- 03. txt CCAMP – IETF 85 Atlanta - Nov 2012. Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Matt Hartley Cisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation Rüdiger Kunze Deutsche Telekom AG George Swallow Cisco Systems.

tex
Download Presentation

draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording- 03. txt CCAMP – IETF 85 Atlanta - Nov 2012

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-te-metric-recording-03.txtCCAMP– IETF 85Atlanta - Nov 2012 Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Clarence FilsfilsCisco Systems • Matt Hartley Cisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation RüdigerKunze Deutsche Telekom AG George SwallowCisco Systems

  2. Overall Problem Space • Between areas, ASes, across UNIs and NNIs, visibility of TE Database information is limited • The aim is to allow path diversity across such boundaries, while respecting that not information can or will be shared • This draft pertains especially to boundaries where policy limits information flow • E.g. at a UNI where the operator limits visibility into the network NNI TE Tail UNI-C TE Head UNI-N NNI ASBR ASBR UNI-N UNI-C ASBR ASBR UNI-N UNI-C

  3. Metric Recording • Latency and latency variation have been identified as critical metrics e.g. in financial networks [draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions], [draft-previdi-isis-te-metric-extensions]. • In inter-domain or GMPLS overlay networks, • Ingress node may not know route of a uni-directional (FA) LSP. • Ingress and egress nodes may not know route of a bi-directional (RA) LSP. • Endpoints of an FA or RA need to advertise these in client layer IGP

  4. Changes from -00 • Added Matt Hartley as an author • Now two authors in common with SRLG Collection draft • Added use of LSP-ATTRIBUTES to allow partial collection if LSP-REQUIRED-ATTRIBUTES fails • Text improvements

  5. Next Steps • Keep aligned with SRLG collection • Add flags for Partial and Summarized information • Useful if policy causes a UNI-N or other intermediate node to edit RRO before passing on • For example to hide nodes between the UNI-Ns • Request Working Group adoption

More Related