draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt

play fullscreen
1 / 8
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt
130 Views
Download Presentation
elvis
Download Presentation

draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. DS-TE protocol ExtensionsRussian Dolls Model (RDM)Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) Maximum Allocation w Reservation(MAR) draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-01.txt draft-ietf-tewg-te-mar-02.txt Francois Le Faucheur flefauch@cisco.com

  2. Closed Issue 1 Vienna Issue: • relationship between “Shared Mesh Restoration “and DS-TE Bandwidth Constraints Models” needs to be understood • is there an issue? • How do we address it?

  3. Closed Issue 1 (Ctnd) • Conclusions: • Shared Mesh Restoration can work simultaneously with DS-TE. • Shared Mesh Restoration should operate independently within each DS-TE Class-Type (and not across Class-Types).     • Shared Mesh Restoration can work with RDM, MAM and MAR • Resolution: • make a wording change to the definition of "Reserved (CTc)" which is used in the formulas for defining RDM, MAM and MAR so that the formulas are compatible with how Shared-Mesh Restoration performs bandwidth reservation/CAC   • add a note in RDM, MAM and MAR specs that these BC Model definitions are compatible with Shared Mesh Restoration with the assumption that Shared Mesh Restoration operates independently within each Class-Type. • Reference: • email 26 Aug subject “Result of investigation Relationship between Shared Mesh Restoration and DSTE Bandwidth Constraints Models” for details

  4. Closed Issue 2 • Issue: raised bydraft-sivabalan-diff-te-bundling and discussed in Vienna • MPLS TE base specs discuss use of preemption priority p • DS-TE proto redefines unreservable bandwidth available at priority "p" to be the reservable bandwidth available for TE-Class "i“ • TE improvements (eg bundled links, FA-LSP,..) refer to how to address the particulars of that improvement with regards to priority “p” (not to TE-Class “i”) • TE improvements need to be generalised to apply to TE-Class “i” • Resolution: • Add a section in –proto- “7.DS-TE support with MPLS extensions.”

  5. Closed Issue 2 (Ctnd) • Resolution: • Add in –proto- a section tatement that for the IGP and RSVP RFCs, as well as technologies that improve upon them (e.g. FA-LSP, link bundling, etc..), in order to be DS-TE compliant, you need to map all references of "p" to TE-Class[i] and map • make a wording change to the definition of "Reserved (CTc)" which is used in the formulas for defining RDM, MAM and MAR so that the formulas are compatible with how Shared-Mesh Restoration performs bandwidth reservation/CAC   • that these BC Model definitions are compatible with Shared Mesh Restoration with the assumption that Shared Mesh Restoration operates independently within each Class-Type. • Reference: • email 26 Aug subject “Result of investigation Relationship between Shared Mesh Restoration and DSTE Bandwidth Constraints Models” for details

  6. Open Issues • None

  7. Status • -proto-: Standards Track • -rdm-, -mam-, -mar: Informational Track • WG Last Call completed • Under IESG Review

  8. Thank You !