Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Thu, 20 December 2012 20:14 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2376021F89F2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:14:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.575
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3leSWY2ztA2a for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053AD21F88E0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUNNxoW97+Whgy+JeAITKsMnxjPAd4Wab@postini.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:14:27 PST
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:12:52 -0800
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:12:52 -0800
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (65.55.88.14) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:20:19 -0800
Received: from mail38-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.252) by TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.9.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:51 +0000
Received: from mail38-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail38-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76502012E for <ccamp@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -81
X-BigFish: PS-81(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh168aJ15cbKJ148cI542I1432I1418I4015I111aIzz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dh18602eh8275bhz2dh2a8h668h839h941hd25hf0ah1269h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh12e1h137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h)
Received: from mail38-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail38-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1356034368238809_415; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS036.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.243]) by mail38-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFEE400059; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS036.bigfish.com (10.9.99.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:46 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.110]) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:45 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: AQHN3tR2EyIlD6SfV0uWPczluqb0CJgiCgswgAAHjoCAAALlwIAACUsAgAABK8A=
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:12:44 +0000
Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B6D5A0B@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50D1D8A1.3060807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045378@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D822403FB33C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <50D1E347.2070602@labn.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D822403FB364@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4804541E@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D822403FB3C5@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835841B7F@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191014DD@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D822403FB7F1@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191015F3@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B6D5856@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191016A8@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B6D590F@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191016D9@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191016D9@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.52]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ADVAOPTICAL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:14:29 -0000
We disagree. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:08 PM > To: John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > The point is that the new definition explicitly requires maintaining CP > state for server resources of the data link that has not been > provisioned yet. This changes a lot of things. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:37 PM > To: Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > Igor, > > I don't actually see any substantive difference between the two > definitions and the additional points you raise are not part of the new > defintion. > > Irrespectively Yours, > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:24 AM > > To: John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > > Cc: CCAMP > > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > John, > > > > We define virtual link as: > > > 1. Virtual Link: is a potential path between two virtual or real > > > server domain network elements in a client layer network that is > > > maintained/controlled in and by the server domain control plane > (and > > > as such cannot transport any traffic/data and protected from being > > de- > > > provisioned) and which can be instantiated in the data plane (and > > then > > > can carry/transport/forward traffic/data) preserving previously > > > advertised attributes such as fate sharing information. > > > > This definition is noticeably different from the one you mention and > > IMO suits our goals better because it requires maintaining a state > for > > each resource that the VL depends upon even when the underlying data > > link is not provisioned. The said resource can be shared with other > > VLs but cannot be de-provisioned or taken by some unrelated service. > > This is important because: > > a) it allows for determining fate sharing information for VLs with > > non- existing underlying data link; > > b) provides some reasonable guarantee that VL can be committed (data > > link will be created) at the time when it is needed > > c) the fate sharing information will not change after the VL is > > committed, i.e. the network planning can be performed before the VL > is > > committed > > d) etc. > > > > Cheers, > > Igor > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:00 PM > > To: Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > > Cc: CCAMP > > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > Igor, > > > > I think the definition in RFC4847 is correct for our purposes: > > > > "Virtual link: A provider network Traffic Engineering (TE) link > > advertised to customers in routing information for purposes that > > include path computation. A direct data link may or may not exist > > between the two end points of a virtual link." > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf > > > Of Igor Bryskin > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:06 AM > > > To: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > > > Cc: CCAMP > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Sergio, > > > > > > 1. According to MRN/MLN is it possible to name a virtual link from > > an > > > independent naming space, if yes, please, provide the quote; > > > > > > 2. According to MRN/MLN is it possible to terminate a virtual link > > > by a virtual node? What is relationship between VNs and VLs? How > > > MLN/MRN solves the O(N**2) problem presented by VNT made of VLs? > > > How MLN/MRN address the blocking nature of nodes that terminate VLs > > > and access links? Please, provide the quote > > > > > > 3. How MLN/MRN addresses the situation when VL with non-existing > > > data link is advertised, and 3 sec later some service takes a > > > resource, making impossible to provision the data link when it is > > > needed? In other words, how MLN/MRN guarantees that the advertised > > > virtual link is actually useful? Please, provide the quote > > > > > > 4. How MLN/MRN addresses the mutual exclusive nature of multiple > VLs > > > mapped onto the same physical provider network resource? Please, > > > provide the quote. > > > > > > You also said: > > > SB> it is possible to route a higher-layer LSP into a lower layer > > > on the assumption that proper hierarchical LSPs in the lower > layer > > > will be dynamically created (triggered) as needed. > > > > > > Is it possible according to MLN/MRN to route a client LSP into > > *higher > > > or the same layer* provider LSP? > > > According to the framework we are discussing it is possible, > because > > > we are not talking about network layers, rather, > overlays/underlays, > > > which have arbitrary layer relationship. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) [mailto:sergio.belotti@alcatel- > > > lucent.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:32 AM > > > To: Igor Bryskin; Fatai Zhang; Gert Grammel > > > Cc: CCAMP; Lou Berger; Daniele Ceccarelli > > > Subject: R: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Hi Igor, > > > > > > See in line > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Sergio > > > > > > Belotti Sergio - System Architect > > > ALCATEL-LUCENT Optics Division > > > > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > > Da: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] > > > Inviato: giovedì 20 dicembre 2012 16.34 > > > A: Fatai Zhang; Lou Berger; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Daniele > > > Ceccarelli > > > Cc: CCAMP > > > Oggetto: RE: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Fatai, > > > You said: > > > (3) Virtual link > > > > > > I see the definition in RFC4847, it says " Virtual link: A > > > provider network Traffic Engineering (TE) link advertised to > > > customers in routing information for purposes that include path > > > computation. A direct data link may or may not exist between the > two > > > end points of a virtual link." > > > > > > IB>> It is not accurate because in the context of this discussion > > > IB>> there > > > is no direct (1:1) correlation between the virtual link advertised > > > to the customer and the provider link. Generally speaking: > > > a) virtual link exists in a different layer network; > > > > > > SB> as in MRN > > > > > > b) virtual link may be mapped to a chain of provider (existing or > > > not yet existing) links > > > > > > SB> as in MRN > > > > > > c)virtual link may be mapped to a hierarchy (stack) of provider > > links. > > > In short, virtual link is decoupled from provider links. > > > > > > SB> it is possible to route a higher-layer LSP into a lower layer > > > on the assumption that proper hierarchical LSPs in the lower > layer > > > will be dynamically created (triggered) as needed. > > > > > > what is the difference in this definition of Virtual TE-link in > MRN > > > context? > > > > > > Furthermore, the definition does not say what terminates virtual > > link. > > > In our definition it can be terminated either by OE (overlay edge) > > > or VN (virtual node). Virtual link (as well as VN) is named from > the > > > customer name space which is independent from provider (underlay) > > > space. > > > > > > SB> I think for Fatai as for me the difference of your concept of > > > virtual link is what already defined in IETF (MRN, L1VPN ) is not > so > > > clear to justify a new definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Igor > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Sergio > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:31 PM > > > To: Lou Berger; Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Daniele > > > Ceccarelli > > > Cc: CCAMP > > > Subject: 答复: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Hi Daniele and all, > > > > > > Thanks for your useful information. > > > > > > I agree with Sergio that it is better to use the existing terms to > > > avoid confusion if there are no significant differences between the > > > new terms and the existing ones. > > > > > > I would like to discuss the terms with you guys. > > > > > > (1) ONI & O-NNI vs (UNI & E-NNI) > > > > > > Is there any inconvenience if we use E-NNI to replace O-NNI? I > don't > > > see any difference between them. > > > > > > Regarding ONI, the difference between UNI and ONI from your text is > > > that routing is allowed to exchange over ONI because it is assumed > > > that only signaling is allowed over UNI. I checked UNI definition > in > > > G.8080, it does say that " Note, there is no routing function > > > associated with the UNI reference point.", but G.8080 allows > > > resource discovery can be allowed over UNI. However, if this is the > > > only difference between ONI and UNI, can we extend the UNI > > > definition to allow routing over UNI? We know that discovery (LMP) > > > could be allowed in OIF UNI 1.0R2 (is LMP signaling?). Can we > simply > > > regard routing > > here as resource discovery? > > > :-) > > > > > > (2) OC&OE vs (CE&PE) > > > > > > I more like CE&PE than OC&OE, because CE&PE are so friendly for > > people. > > > I just checked Y.1311 to see the definition of CE&PE. Actually, > > > CE&PE are just abbreviations. I think CE&PE are generic enough to > > > fit overlay context. How about to re-define CE&PE in the simliar > way > > > in > > > RFC4847 even though CE&PE is not suitable for overlay context? > > > > > > I don't see the fundamental difference between the figure in the > > slide > > > and Figure 1 in RFC4208 besides these new terms. > > > > > > (3) Virtual link > > > > > > I see the definition in RFC4847, it says " Virtual link: A provider > > > network Traffic Engineering (TE) link advertised to customers in > > > routing information for purposes that include path computation. A > > > direct data link may or may not exist between the two end points of > > > a virtual link." > > > > > > Is this not accurate? > > > > > > (4) I think we can get more useful information from the existing > > > IETF drafts (LiVPN RFC/drafts) and ITU-T recommendations such as > > > G.8080, Y.1311, Y.1312.... > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > Fatai > > > > > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 > > > BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > > > 发送时间: 2012年12月20日 0:58 > > > 收件人: Daniele Ceccarelli > > > 抄送: CCAMP > > > 主题: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Ciao Daniele, > > > > > > See in line > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sergio > > > > > > Belotti Sergio - System Architect > > > ALCATEL-LUCENT Optics Division > > > > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > > Da: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] > > > Inviato: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 17.48 > > > A: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Lou Berger > > > Cc: CCAMP > > > Oggetto: RE: R: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > Hi Sergio, > > > > > > A VPN is one of the many things (services) that can be done in an > > > overlay context and my proposal was to call such nodes OE and OC > > > when generally referring to them withing the overlay context. If in > > > such context you are proving a VPN, then the OE is a PE and the OC > > > is a > > CE, > > > but only for the VPN. They are not a PE and a CE for every other > > > service going through them that is not a VPN. > > > > > > SB> In the context of L1VPN , Overlay stands for a Service Model, > > > SB> here > > > it seems as though we change in the opposite in which you have a > > > network topology and VPN is a service on that. This creates some > > > confusion in my mind . > > > > > > Take for example the "kilt". You don't call "kilt" every skirt. > When > > > you're in the context of traditional scottish male clothing you > call > > > it "kilt", otherwise it's generally called skirt. (apologies for > the > > > example but a better one didn't come to my mind). > > > > > > SB> Very good example > > > > > > Wrt the MRN what is your proposal? Calling the virtual te-links > just > > > VNT? > > > > > > SB> Just taken the definition that are already there . So just > > > reference them. > > > > > > > > > Ciao > > > Daniele > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > > > >[mailto:sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com] > > > >Sent: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 17.04 > > > >To: Lou Berger; Daniele Ceccarelli > > > >Cc: CCAMP > > > >Subject: R: R: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > > >Lou, > > > > > > > >I misunderstood your assumption sorry, yes we agree in the > > definition > > > >for OE and OC but referring to PE and CE as helpful reference in > > > >the definition. > > > > > > > >Sergio > > > > > > > >Belotti Sergio - System Architect > > > >ALCATEL-LUCENT Optics Division > > > > > > > >-----Messaggio originale----- > > > >Da: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > > > >Inviato: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 16.55 > > > >A: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > > > >Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP > > > >Oggetto: Re: R: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > > > > > > > > > >Sergio, > > > > I'm not sure we're in agreement. I'm fine with the OE/OC > > > >terminology. > > > > (which shouldn't be too surprising...) > > > > > > > >Lou > > > > > > > >On 12/19/2012 10:46 AM, BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) wrote: > > > >> Hi Daniele, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks a lot for your effort to summarize mail exchange. > > > >> > > > >> About the content and definitions , I would support the Lou > > > position. > > > >> I think that in this context many of the concepts and > > > >definitions have been proposed , are already present in the IETF > > > >document. > > > >> > > > >> ONI definition and OE and OC definitions surely does not > > > >help to clarify scenarios that has been already debated in the VPN > > > >context . > > > >> > > > >> I support UNI only definition without to complicate > > > >proliferating with other interface definitions, and the usage of > CE > > > ,PE > > > >for nodes. > > > >> Moreover I have also perplexity about the definition of > > > >Virtual Link and Virtual Topology. > > > >> > > > >> What are the difference and the added values to have very > > > >similar definitions to what already well defined in the MRN > context > > ? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for your effort. > > > >> > > > >> Ciao > > > >> Sergio > > > >> > > > >> Belotti Sergio - System Architect ALCATEL-LUCENT Optics > Division > > > >> > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- > > > >> Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] > > > >Per conto di Daniele Ceccarelli > > > >> Inviato: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 16.32 > > > >> A: Lou Berger > > > >> Cc: CCAMP > > > >> Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > >> > > > >> Lou, it's just a matter of convenience. > > > >> > > > >> Why should is say: > > > >> "customer interface/link between an OE and an OC in the > > > >overlay model context supporting both signaling and routing > message > > > >exchange that is called UNI when only signaling is supported" > > > >> > > > >> ...when i could simply say: ONI? :) > > > >> > > > >> BR > > > >> Daniele > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > > > >>> Sent: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 16.09 > > > >>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli > > > >>> Cc: CCAMP > > > >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > >>> > > > >>> Daniele, > > > >>> see below. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 12/19/2012 5:56 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > > > >>>> Hi Lou, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Plese find replies in line. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> BR > > > >>>> Daniele > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > > > >>>>> Sent: lunedì 17 dicembre 2012 20.45 > > > >>>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli > > > >>>>> Cc: CCAMP > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Daniele, > > > >>>>> Thanks for getting this on-list discussion going. I have > > some > > > >>>>> comments and questions: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - So what's a "client layer network" in this context? > > > >Perhaps you > > > >>>>> mean OC or "(overlay) customer layer"? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Yes. The terms client layer and server layer are > > > >>> reminescences to be corrected. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - So what's a "server layer network" in this context? > > > >Perhaps you > > > >>>>> mean OE or "(overlay) provider layer"? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Again correct > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - For OC, I'd thing referring back to a CE in the VPN > > > >context, and > > > >>>>> likewise to a PE for an OE, is helpful context. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In the case of the interface we generally define the ONI as > > > >>> an overlay > > > >>>> interface that in a particular case is called UNI. > > > >>> > > > >>> I have no idea what this means. I suspect it relates to > > > >>> comments below, so will discuss there. > > > >>> > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>> apply the same method: those nodes are called Overlay Customer > > > >>>> and Overlay Edge and in the particular case of VPNs they are > > > >>>> the > > > >>> CE and PE > > > >>>> respectively. What about that? > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> How about: > > > >>> > > > >>> An OC is analogous to an L3VPN CE, and an OE is analogous to an > > > >>> L3VPN PE (with a provider based VPN). > > > >>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - As you mention in the Appendix, (from the OC perspective) > > > >>> there is > > > >>>>> no difference between a virtual and real node (and > > > >>> presumably link as > > > >>>>> well). Given this and your comment in 8, that the ONI > > > >can take the > > > >>>>> form of a UNI or include both signaling and routing (i.e., a > > > >>>>> peer/I-NNI or > > > >>>>> E-NNI) what value is there in introducing the ONI term? > > > >>> Said another > > > >>>>> way, there's no specific term for the interface between a > > > >CE and PE > > > >>>>> in L3VPNs, so why do we need to introduce one in this > context? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We gave a name to the UNI, why don't giving to the ONI? > > > >>> > > > >>> Because redundant/unnecessary terminology only obfuscates. > > > >>> > > > >>> Why not customer interface/link? This has been sufficient > > > >for L3VPNs. > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think this same comment probably holds for the O-NNI > > > >>> (e.g., what's > > > >>>>> the name of the interface between providers which support > > > >>>>> L3VPN handoffs?)... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would suggest giving a name to that interface also in > > > >>> order to distinguish between an "internal" and an "external" > > > >>> link when multiple overlay provider network domains are > present. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> How about inter-provider interface/link? Again, this has been > > > >>> sufficient for L3VPNs. > > > >>> > > > >>> Lou > > > >>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Much thanks, > > > >>>>> Lou > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 12/17/2012 6:17 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > > > >>>>>> Dear CCAMPers, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In the last weeks several off-line discussions on the > > > >>>>> Overlay model framework and related works took place. Some > > > >>>>> discussions led to some sort of agreemet among a small group > > > >>>>> of people, some others to a set a viable options, some others > > > >>> to totally > > > >>>>> open issues. I tried to summarize the output of such > > discussions > > > >>>>> below so to progress the discussions into a single thread > > > >on the WG > > > >>>>> ML. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Please note that the aim of this mail is not to present a > > > >>>>> well shaped and conclusive idea to the WG but rather to > > > >provide the > > > >>>>> basis for starting a discussion from a barely shaped idea > > > >(step 1) > > > >>>>> instead of starting it from scratch (step 0). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In addition you can find attached a slide depicting a > > > >>>>> proposal of the overlay scenario. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Daniele > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> + Disclaimer: > > > >>>>>> 1. Packet opto integration is often considered but the work > > > >>>>> can be extented to any type of SC. Eg. TDM over LSC. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> + Terminology: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 1. Virtual Link: A virtual link is a potential path between > > > >>>>> two virtual or real network elements in a client layer > > > >network that > > > >>>>> is maintained/controlled in and by the server domain > > > >control plane > > > >>>>> (and as such cannot transport any traffic/data and protected > > > >>>>> from being de-provisioned) and which can be instantiated in > > > >>>>> the > > > >>> data plane > > > >>>>> (and then can carry/transport/forward traffic/data) > preserving > > > >>>>> previously advertised attributes such as fate sharing > > > information. > > > >>>>>> 2. Virtual Node: Virtual node is a collection of zero or > > > >>>>> more server network domain nodes that are collectively > > > >represented > > > >>>>> to the clients as a single node that exists in the client > > > >>>>> layer network and is capable of terminating of access, > > > >>>>> inter-domain and virtual links. > > > >>>>>> 3.Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of one > > > >>>>> or more virtual or real server network domain nodes that > > > >>> exist in the > > > >>>>> client layer network and are interconnected via 0 or more > > > >>>>> virtual links. > > > >>>>>> 4. Overlay topology: is a superset of virtual topologies > > > >>>>> provided by each of server network domains, access and > > > >inter-domain > > > >>>>> links. > > > >>>>>> 5. Access Link: Link between OC and OE. GMPLS runs on that > > > >>>>> link. It can support any of the SCs supported by the GMPLS. > > > >>>>>> 6. Overlay Customer (OC): Something like the CN in RFC4208 > > > >>>>> teminology but (i) receiving virtual topology from the > > > >>> core network > > > >>>>> and requesting the set up of one of them or (ii) requesting > > > >>>>> the computation and establishment of a path accordingly to > > > >>>>> gien constraints in the core network and receiving the > > > >>>>> parameters characterizing such path. (ii) == UNI. > > > >>>>>> 7. Overlay Edge (OE): Something like the EN in RFC4208 but > > > >>>>> able to deal with (i) and (ii) above. > > > >>>>>> 8. ONI : Overlay network interface: Interface allowing for > > > >>>>> signaling and routing messages exchange between Overlay and > > Core > > > >>>>> network. Routing information consists on virtual topology > > > >>>>> advertisement. When there is no routing adjacency across the > > > >>>>> interface it is equivalent to the GMPLS UNI defined in 4208. > > > >>>>> Signaling messages are compliant with RFC4208. > > > >Information related > > > >>>>> to path carachteristics, e.g. TE-metrics, collected SRLG, > > > >>> path delay > > > >>>>> etc, either passed from OE to OC via signaling after the LSP > > > >>>>> establishment in the core network or from OC to OE to be > > > >>> used as path > > > >>>>> computation constraints, fall under the definition of > > > >>> signaling info > > > >>>>> and not routing info). > > > >>>>>> 9. O-NNI (name to be found,maybe reused): Interface on the > > > >>>>> links between different core networks in the overlay model > > > >>>>> environment, i.e. Between border OEs. Same features of the > > > >>> ONI apply > > > >>>>> to this interface. Could it be an E-NNI? A ONI? A new name > > > >>> is needed? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> + Statements > > > >>>>>> 1. In the context of overlay model we are aiming to build > > > >>>>> an overlay > > > >>>>>> topology for the client network domains 2. The overlay > > > >>>>> topology is comprised of: > > > >>>>>> a) access links (links connecting client NEs to the > > > >>>>> server network domains). They can be PSC or LSC. > > > >>>>>> b) inter-domain links (links interconnecting server > > > >>>>> network domains) > > > >>>>>> c) virtual topology provided by the server network > > > >>>>> domains. Virtual Links + Virtual Nodes (TBD) + > > > >Connectivity Matrix > > > >>>>> (with a set of parameters e.g. SRLG, optical impairments, > > > >delay etc > > > >>>>> for each entry) describing connectivity between access links > > and > > > >>>>> virtual links. > > > >>>>>> 3. In the context of overlay model we manage hierarchy > > > >>> of overlay > > > >>>>>> topologies with overlay/underlay relationships 4. In the > > > >>> context of > > > >>>>>> overlay model multi-layering and inter-layer relationships > > > >>>>> are peripheral at best, it is all about horizontal network > > > >>>>> integration 5. The overlay model assumes one instance for > > > >>> the client > > > >>>>> network and a separate instance for the server network and > > > >>> in the ONI > > > >>>>> case the server network also surreptitiously participates in > > the > > > >>>>> client network by injecting virtual topology information into > > it. > > > >>>>>> 6. L1VPN (and LxVPN) in general is a service provided over > > > >>>>> the ONI (it falls under the UNI case as no routing > > > >adjacency is in > > > >>>>> place between OC and OE). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> + Open issues/questions > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 1. PCE-PCEP - do we need to include considerations about > > > >>>>> PCE and PCEP into the overlay framework context? > > > >>>>>> 2. BGP-LS needs to be considered 3. Should potentials be > > > >>>>>> included? E.g. I2RS? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> + Appendix: > > > >>>>>> Some notes on the Virtual Node: > > > >>>>>> 1. Virtual Link Model along, sadly, does not scale > > > >>>>> because of N**2 problem. IP over ATM and single-segment PWs > > > >>> have the > > > >>>>> same issue, that's why people invented multi-segment PWs > > > >>>>>> 2. The only way to avoid full-mesh of Virtual Links is > > > >>>>> by having intermediate nodes interconnecting Virtual Links in > > > >>>>> the middle of the virtual topology > > > >>>>>> 3. These intermediate nodes cannot be real server > > > >>>>> domain switches, because, generally speaking: > > > >>>>>> a)Real switches belong to different layer network; > > > >>>>>> b)Real switches are named from different naming space > > > >>>>>> c)real switches individually may not have sufficient > > > >>>>> resources to terminate virtual links (while a group of real > > > >>> switches > > > >>>>> collectively will have) > > > >>>>>> d)Presenting a group of real switches as a single virtual > > > >>>>> node have better scalability qualities > > > >>>>>> 4. Even if you map a virtual node on a single real > > > >>>>> node, you need to keep in mind that real server domain > > > >>> switches are, > > > >>>>> generally speaking, blocking switches and as such must > > > >expose their > > > >>>>> connectivity matrices > > > >>>>>> 5. If you want to compute SRLG-disjoint paths that > > > >>>>> could potentially go through a real server domain switch, the > > > >>>>> latter's connectivity matrix must expose "internal" > > > >SRLGs, so that > > > >>>>> the two services traversing the switch will not > > > >simultaneously fail > > > >>>>> if a single internal element shared by the services fails > > > >>>>>> 6. If you walk through all cases that need to be > > > >>>>> addressed when you are traffic engineering topologies > > > >with blocking > > > >>>>> switches, you will understand that there is absolutely no > > > >>> difference > > > >>>>> between a virtual node and real blocking real node. > > > >>>>>> 7. Even in case of pure VL model, client NEs connected > > > >>>>> to server network domain must be upgraded so that they could > > > >>>>> understand the connectivity matrices advertised by the > > > >border nodes > > > >>>>> describing connectivity constraints between access links > > > >>> and virtual > > > >>>>> links they terminate. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> =================================== > > > >>>>>> DANIELE CECCARELLI > > > >>>>>> System & Technology - PDU Optical & Metro > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Via E.Melen, 77 > > > >>>>>> Genova, Italy > > > >>>>>> Phone +390106002512 > > > >>>>>> Mobile +393346725750 > > > >>>>>> daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com www.ericsson.com > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive > > > >>>>> email on > > > >>>>>> the basis of the term set out at > > > >www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>> CCAMP mailing list > > > >>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org > > > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> CCAMP mailing list > > > >> CCAMP@ietf.org > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CCAMP mailing list > > > CCAMP@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CCAMP mailing list > > > CCAMP@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: Overlay model framework and context Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Overlay model framework and cont… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Overlay model framework and cont… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli