uni extensions for diversity and latency support 13-mar-13ietf 86 orlando1 don...

IETF 86 Orlando 1

UNI Extensions for Diversityand Latency Support

13-Mar-13

Don Fedyk Donald.Fedyk@alcatel-lucent.comDieter Beller Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.comLieven Levrau Lieven.Levrau@alcatel-lucent.comDaniele Ceccerelli Daniele.Ceccarelli@ericsson.comFatai Zhang ZhangFatai@huawei.comYuji Tochio Tochio@jp.fujitsu.com

draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-01

IETF 86 – CCAMP WG

2

Agenda

• I-D history and brief overview• Updates from 00 to 01 version• Relationship with other CCAMP work• Next steps

13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

IETF 86 Orlando 3

I-D History and Brief Overview

• draft-fedyk-ccamp-l1vpn-extnd-overlay-01 becamedraft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-00 as per Vancouver meeting suggestion to broaden the applicability scope from GMPLS UNI for L1VPNs to the GMPLS UNI in general:– Title/I-D file name changed– Content aligned with new scope– Still applicable to the GMPLS UNI for a L1VPN following the overlay

extension service model (L1VPN is a special case of the general UNI case)

• draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-00 is still addressing:– UNI extensions for achieving diversity in the provider network– UNI extensions to deal with latency/latency variation (delay/

delay variation) constraints

13-Mar-13

IETF 86 Orlando 4

Updates from 00 to 01 version

• Diversity part:– Error handling procedures added

• Latency part:– “Latency Signaling Extensions” section revised (new text

added)

• Reference added and references updated

13-Mar-13

5

Relationship with other CCAMP work

• draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-01 complements:– draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity-01.txt– draft-ali-ccamp-extended-srlg-00.txtthese drafts address signaling extensions to support LSP

diversity and SRLG for multi-provider domain networks

• draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions-01 differs from:– draft-beeram-ccamp-melg-00.txtdraft describes routing actions on a virtual topology that

has been provided to the CEs

13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

6

Next Steps

• Solicit feedback/comments from the group

• Further refinement of dual-homing solution including more detailed signaling extensions

• Further refinement of latency section

• Collaboration with authors working on:draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-00.txt

13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

7

Thank You!

13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

IETF 86 Orlando 8

Backup Slides

13-Mar-13

9

Dual-homing Problem Statement

PE1 P P PE

PE2 P P PE

CE CE

LSP1

LSP2

Problem Statement: ensure that LSP1 and LSP2 are mutually disjoint13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

10

Option 1: Exchange of SRLG List

PE1 P P PE

PE2 P P PE

CE CE

LSP1

LSP2

SRLG_IDs(LSP1)

SRLG_IDs(LSP1)

SRLG_IDs(LSP2)

Exchange of SRLG ID list for disjoint LSPs via source CE node13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando

11

Option 2: Exchange of Path Affinity Set

PE1 P P PE

PE2 P P PE

CE CE

LSP1

LSP2

PAS(LSP1)

PAS(LSP1)

• Exchange of PAS + LSP ID via source CE node• Dissemination of (PAS, LSP ID, SRLG IDs) among PEs for each L1VPN

13-Mar-13 IETF 86 Orlando