Transcript IPO-5
Requirements on the O-UNI 1 4/11/2016 Olivier Duroyon, Alcatel Monica Lazer, AT&T Jen-Wei Kuo, Fujitsu Hirokazu Ishimatsu, Japan Telecom Zhi-Wei Lin, Lucent Mark Jones, Sprint Yang Cao, Sycamore Vijaya Poudyal, Telcordia Philip Walch, TyCom Yong Xue, UUNET/Worldcom Curtis Brownmiller, Worldcom General Switched Network Architecture RA UNI Control Plane UNI OCC RA AD2 OCC AD1 I-NNI E-NNI CCI NMI-A Plane CCI NMI-T User Plane SNC NE 2 4/11/2016 SNC PI Management Business Models • Four business models to be supported – ISP owning all layer 1 infrastructure • Complete trust – router & ONE all owned by one ISP – ISP owning partial or leasing layer 1 infrastructure • May not have complete trust – router & ONE may be in separate admin domains – Retailer or wholesaler for multi-services • Does not have trust – router & ONE in separate admin domain – Carrier’s carrier, or bandwidth broker • Does not have trust – only ONE 3 4/11/2016 ASON dial-up requirements • Connection operations (create, modify, delete) – Various facets of modify – disruptive, non-disruptive – Need to define what constitutes non-disruptive, what disruptive • Connection resilience – Specify availability of connection – Specify specific constraints • SRLG, link disjoint, node disjoint, etc. – Should not specify service provider architectural solution, e.g., protection type used • Protection type only a means to achieve resilience – e.g., availability 4 4/11/2016 ASON dial-up requirements • Control plane network resilience – Should not have dependencies of signaling network with transport network • Allows for re-use of signaling network for control of other transport networks – GMPLS principle – Signaling network fail should not impact existing connections • E.g., RSVP control plane failure would tear down existing connections? • Scheduled connection services – Support for scheduled connection by different means • Scheduling provided by user scheduler – no need for signaling • Scheduling provided by service provider scheduler – signaling needed – Have we discussed and examined these different aspects • E.g., if service provider how to guarantee scheduled connection when network is composed of non-deterministic connection requests? 5 4/11/2016 ASON dial-up requirements • Naming & addressing requirements – Discussion still on-going among carriers requirements • Support name (no semantics) or address (semantics) • Use source/dest user names OR source/dest ONE names – OIF decided to use the latter • Support multiple user name spaces (IP,ATM, NSAP) • Who provides name/address translation/directory service (service provider will provide – current agreement) – Is there need for 2-phase address resolution • What is need for user to query address and then use address to signal redundant step? • Is protocol limitations governing requirements or should we extend protocol to support variable name types (up to 160 bits) – E.g., new C-type for a generic name? 6 4/11/2016 Proposal • IPO/CCAMP WG start first from requirements • Requirements and framework work should be coordinated with other standards bodies (OIF carrier document, ITU G.astn) – Multiple Requirements and Framework I-Ds should be merged • Signaling protocol specification need to meet the requirements – RSVP-TE for O-UNI (yu-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext-00) – LDP for O-UNI (ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-00) 7 4/11/2016