Transcript PPT Version

TE parameters to be exchanged
between GMPLS-controlled ASes
draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-00.txt
Tomohiro Otani [email protected]
Michiaki Hayashi [email protected]
Satoru Okamoto [email protected]
60th IETF San Diego August 2004
Summary of this draft
• This draft fits to the following charter item
– “defining signaling and routing mechanisms to create paths that
span multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes, and multiple providers”.
• This draft
– clarifies the need for dynamic or static TE information exchange
between GMPLS-controlled ASes, comparing to MPLS networks.
– describes the requirement of TE parameters for GMPLS EGP
– is jointly proposed by SPs (KDDI/NTT) in order to improve
operational efficiency for interconnecting GMPLS networks, while
keeping their topology information concealing.
[KDDI and NTT are interconnected with each other at L1
(SONET/SDH), L2(ATM) as well as at L3 (IP).]
60th IETF San Diego August 2004
GMPLS Inter AS TE overview
GMPLS AS 1
Based on GMPLS constrains
LSC
LSC
LSC
GMPLS AS 2
LSC
LSC/SONET/2.5G
LSC
LSC
LSC
LSC
LSC
LSC
LSC
LSC
Ingress
(2.5G SONET LSP)
•
LSC/SONET/10G
Shortest path
AS boarder nodes
Egress
In addition to the constraints considered in the MPLS Inter AS network model,
the GMPLS Inter AS network model should consider the following constrains:
–
–
–
–
•
AS 1’s view
Switching capability of nodes: TDM-SC, LSC, FSC
Encoding type of TE links: Ethernet, SONET, Lambda, etc.
Bandwidth of TE links: 1G, 2.4G, 10G, 40G, etc.
SRLG of TE links as well as nodes
(Protection type: 1+1, 1:1, unprotected, etc)
determined by
SPs’ business
strategy
These are used to appropriately establish a GMPLS LSP across multiple ASes,
while keeping the topology information concealing.
60th IETF San Diego August 2004
Requirement of TE parameters
for GMPLS EGP
• GMPLS boarder nodes are required to announce an
end-point (reachability) list consisting node IDs, interface
addresses and interface IDs per following parameters;
(1) Interface Switching capability
(1-1) Bandwidth
A. Total link bandwidth
B. Max./Min. Reservable bandwidth
C. Unreserved bandwidth
(1-2) Switching capability: TDM, Lambda, FSC
(2) Bandwidth Encoding: Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.
(3) SRLG (otherwise, protection type may be added)
• In addition, in order to create resilient LSPs over ASes, a
mechanism to assign globally unique SRLG IDs across
multiple ASes may be required (ex. part of the bits is
locally controlled and part is globally controlled).
60th IETF San Diego August 2004
Next Steps
• Will add the GMPLS EGP requirements.
– Need EGP experts to help describe EGP requirements.
– Investigate the extra load of ASBRs by introducing GMPLS EGP
extensions (suggested by Adrian).
• Will propose this to be a working group document after
the above work is completed.
• Will investigate GMPLS EGP extensions.
– Need EGP experts to help develop GMPLS EGP extensions.
• Will investigate the bit assignment mechanism in SRLG
to maintain a global consistency.
60th IETF San Diego August 2004