70 likes | 78 Views
Requirements for delivering MPLS services Over L3VPN draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-00.txt. Kenji Kumaki ke-kumaki@kddi.com. Overview. Motivation Provide robust MPLS services to customers Can offer end-to-end paths using LDP Can’t offer end-to-end paths using RSVP extensions
E N D
Requirements for delivering MPLS services Over L3VPNdraft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-00.txt Kenji Kumaki ke-kumaki@kddi.com 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Overview • Motivation • Provide robust MPLS services to customers • Can offer end-to-end paths using LDP • Can’t offer end-to-end paths using RSVP extensions • Offer CE-to-CE MPLS TE LSPs between customer sites • Guarantee bandwidth, Provide fast protection, diversely routed path …… • Provide all of the benefits of a L3VPN • Offer vrf instance per customer to avoid security issues • Customers can not forward packets through the service provider’s general forwarding instance. • They can not join the service provider’s routing domain and MPLS signaling domain. • Assign address space that is unique only to a VPN 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Overview (cont.) • This draft is to: • Clarify issues for e2e MPLS TE LSP over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs • Describe reference model for e2e MPLS TE LSP over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs • Describe specific requirements for e2e MPLS TE LSP over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Reference model SP’s MPLS TE LSPs e2e MPLS TE LSPs Vrf instances Customer’s or another SP’s network Customer’s or another SP’s network Service Provider’s network 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Summary of Requirements • Establish CE-to-CE MPLS TE LSPs over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN (i.e. vrf instance) • Offer scalable and robust CE-to-CE MPLS TE LSPs over vrf instance • Provide these LSPs in carrier’s carrier environments as well as basic BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments • Detailed requirements [See in section 5.] • FRR support • Policy control support • Optimal path support • DS-TE support • MPLS OAM support • etc 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Remaining Issues • Add application scenarios ? • Add P2MP e2e TE LSPs ? • Separated draft or same draft • Any other specific requirements? 65th IETF Dallas March 2006
Next Actions • Need more comments and feedback from WG • Got some comments and feedback from Raymond of BT infonet • Will work with him in next version • Request WG to accept this I-D as a WG document 65th IETF Dallas March 2006