Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

Dieter,

I like the term Virtual Node to distinguish it from the real provider network node. The Virtual Topology presented by the provider network to the clients is comprised of Virtual Nodes (interconnected via Virtual Links) because:

a)      The nodes/links exist in the client layer;

b)      The nodes/links are named from the client naming space
Whether a given VN represents multiple provider real nodes, exactly one real node, a fraction of one node or 5.75 nodes is immaterial.
Furthermore, VN associated with a non-blocking part of a blocking switch is a representation of the said non-blocking part in a Virtual Topology. Because Virtual Topologies are, generally speaking, different for different set of clients, the VNs representing the same non-blocking part of a real provider switch is also different in different Virtual Topologies.

Igor


From: Dieter Beller [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:21 PM
To: Igor Bryskin
Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2

Hi Igor,
On 16.01.2013 18:49, Igor Bryskin wrote:

Daniel,

One correction:

VN may represent a fraction of a real node. This makes possible for the network to advertise a blocking PE as a set of non-blocking PE and thus alleviate the client path computer from dealing with blocking PEs.
why do you prefer to use the term Virtual Node for the non-blocking sub-nodes that compose
a larger blocking node. Representing the sub-nodes in the topological view is IMHO more the
representation of the real entities rather than virtual ones and provides a white box view of that
node instead of a black box view.


Thanks,
Dieter






Igor



-----Original Message-----

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:33 AM

To: CCAMP

Subject: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2



Dear overlayers,



Please find below a new version (v2) of the framework summary reflecting the latest discussions. Again i hope i've captured all the comments around, sorry if anything is missing, in case just let me know what i missed.



BR

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 provider layer network  that is maintained/controlled in and by the provider  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 provider network domain  nodes that are collectively represented to the clients as a single node that  exists in the customer 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 provider  network domain nodes that exist in the customer layer network and are interconnected  via 0 or more virtual links.

 4. Overlay topology:  is a superset of virtual topologies provided by each of  provider 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. CE (customer Edge): Something like the CN in RFC4208 teminology  but (i) receiving  virtual topology from the provider network and requesting the set up of one of them or

 (ii) requesting the computation and establishment of a path accordingly to given constraints  in the provider network and receiving the parameters characterizing such path. (ii) == UNI.

 7. PE (provider Edge): Something like the EN in RFC4208 but able to deal with (i) and (ii) above.

 8. PE-CE interface (former ONI) : Interface allowing for signaling and routing messages  exchange between customer overlay and provider 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 CE to PE via signaling after the LSP establishment  in the core network or from CE to PE to be used as path computation constraints, fall  under the definition of signaling info and not routing info).

 9. CE-CE (former O-NNI): Interface on the links between different provider networks  in the overlay model environment. Same features of the CE-PE apply to this interface.



+ Statements

 1. In the context of overlay model we are aiming to build an overlay topology for  the customer network domains  2. The overlay topology is comprised of:

    a) access links (links connecting client NEs to the provider network domains).

 They can be PSC or LSC.

    b) inter-domain links (links interconnecting server network domains)

    c) virtual topology provided by the provider 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 CP instance for the customer network and a separate  instance for the provider network and in the CE-PE interface case the provider  network also surreptitiously participates in the customer network by injecting  virtual topology information into it.

 6. L1VPN (and LxVPN) in general is a type of service provided over the CE-PE interface  (it falls under the UNI case as no routing adjacency is in place between CE and PE).





+ Advertisement models (to be detailed in dedicated document/documents)

 The CE-PE interface in the overlay model context foresees two types of advertisement  models.(names still to be agreed) A. Augmented UNI: The GMPLS UNI is defined in RFC4208 and augmented by  a number of actived draft (references to various drafts to be added).

 The Augmented UNI is a particular type of CE-PE interface where only signaling messages  are exchanged between CE and PE. Messages from CE to PE can include  a set of parameters to be used by the PE as path computation constraints  when computing a path in the provider domain network, while messages from PE  to CE can include a set of parameters qualifying the LSP being established,  like for example SRLG, delay, loss etc.

B. ONI: The GMPLS ONI is a CE-PE interface (this could be simply called with the  general CE-PE interface term?) allowing the establishment of signaling and routing adjacency  between CE and PE. Routing info passed from PE to CE comprise overlay topology information including  (but not limited to) virtual links, connectivity matrices and access links with parameters qualifying  each of them in terms of e.g. SRLG, loss, delay etc. Signaling information and procedures are  compliant with RFC4208.



+ 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?

 4. Virtual links: wouldn't a different definition of virtual links avoid the advertisement of connectivity matrices (this is out of the fwk scope but within the advertisement models one)?

Take this example:

PE1-----CE1               CE2-----PE2

        CE1======VL1======CE2

        CE1======VL2======CE2

i.e. There are 2 VL connecting CE1 and CE2 that could be available for PE1 and PE2 to set up an adjacency in the customer domain. CE1 and/or CE2 can be blocking nodes so VL1 and/or VL2 are available only depending on the connectivity matrices of CE1 and CE2. Hence PEs need to be aware of both VL and connectivity matrices. My point is: if CE1 advertises to PE1 only the VL that his connectivity matrix allows to be connected to PE1 (e.g. VL1 only) and not all of them, it should be possible to avoid the connectivity matrices advertisement.





===================================

DANIELE CECCARELLI

System & Technology - PDU Optical & Metro



Via E.Melen, 77

Genova, Italy

Phone [phone]

Mobile [phone]

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

www.ericsson.com<http://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<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>



_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

--
[cid:image001.jpg@01CDF40F.494E2FC0]
DIETER BELLER
ALCATEL-LUCENT DEUTSCHLAND AG
PROJECT MANAGER ASON/GMPLS CONTROL PLANE
CORE NETWORKS BUSINESS DIVISION
OPTICS BU, SWITCHING R&D

Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Phone: [phone]
Mobil: [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG
Domicile of the Company: Stuttgart · Local Court Stuttgart HRB 4026
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Michael Oppenhoff
Board of Management: Wilhelm Dresselhaus (Chairman) · Hans-Jörg Daub · Dr. Rainer Fechner · Andreas Gehe

This e-mail and its attachments, if any, may contain confidential information.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete or destroy the e-mail and its attachments, if any, immediately.
If you have received this e-mail in error, you must not forward or make use of the e-mail and its attachments, if any.