Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context

Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
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 46C5721F8923 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:01:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.718, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6]
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 cwwWQQIAnir6 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.advaoptical.com (mail.advaoptical.com [91.217.199.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDD521F8920 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MUC-SRV-MAIL10B.advaoptical.com ([172.20.1.60]) by muc-vsrv-fsmail.advaoptical.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBKG1L6n031912 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:01:21 +0100
Received: from MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.95) by MUC-SRV-MAIL10B.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.99.0; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:01:20 +0100
Received: from ATL-SRV-MAIL10.atl.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.39) by MUC-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.516.32; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:01:20 +0100
Received: from ATL-SRV-MAIL10.atl.advaoptical.com ([fe80::c4d6:b136:bc16:77ae]) by atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com ([fe80::c4d6:b136:bc16:77ae%17]) with mapi id 14.03.0099.000; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:01:18 -0500
From: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: AQHN3FoyMpRFmiKOO0C4+grxFeglZpgdX8FggALVWfCAAAjbEIABMZ5wgABq0HA=
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:01:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1910154B@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
References: <305443B66F0CD946A3107753337A031103FAA66E@CH1PRD0511MB431.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A19100EDA@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045190@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191012BC@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045653@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045653@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.21.1.81]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-12-20_05:2012-12-20, 2012-12-20, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 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 16:01:29 -0000

Daniele,
It seems we have a disconnect here.

OC1-----OE1======VL1======OE2-----OC2
OC3-----OE1======VL2======OE2-----OC4

Generally speaking OEs are blocking switches, and the connectivity matrices need to be advertised by OEs, so that the client path computer will know , for example, that OC1-OE1 access link can be switched to VL1 (but not to VL2). One way to alleviate the client path computation from dealing with connectivity matrices is by presenting OEs as sets of independent fully symmetrical Virtual Nodes:

OC1-----VN1======VL1======VN3-----OC2
OC3-----VN2======VL2======VN4-----OC4 

Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:41 AM
To: Igor Bryskin; Gert Grammel; CCAMP
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context

Hi Igor,

Unfortunately your drawing is totally misaligned, is this a correct re-drawing?

OC1------If1:OE1                          OE2:IF4---------OC2
             OE1:If2----------------- If3:OE2 

answer : is neither a), b) nor c)

OC1------If1:OE1========== VL =========== OE2:IF4---------OC2
             OE1:If2----------------- If3:OE2 

With respect to Q2:

>Q2: if on the other side we considered the virtual link being 
>B) (i.e. From IF1 to IF4 hence with an "implicit" node 
>connectivity matrix) which would be the drawbacks of this solution?
>
>IB>>  VL cannot start on a customer facing interface. OE is a 
>(blocking) 
>IB>> switch between access and virtual TE links

I still believe the tranffic matrix can be implicitely advertised as part of the VL. Consider this:

OC3------If5:OE1========== VL1 =========== OE2:IF6---------OC4
OC1------If1:OE1========== VL2 =========== OE2:IF4---------OC2
             OE1:If2-------------------If3:OE2 

OE1 is a blocking node because only allows OC3 to be connected to VL1 and OC1 to VL2. But if you just advertise VL1 to OC3 (not VL2) and VL2 to OC1 (not VL1) aren't you implicitely hiding the blocking nature of OE1?

Cheers,
Daniele


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] 
>Sent: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 18.03
>To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Gert Grammel; CCAMP
>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
>
>Daniele,
>Please, see in line.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:53 AM
>To: Igor Bryskin; Gert Grammel; CCAMP
>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
>
>Hi Igor,
>
>Just focusing on the virtual links for a while; i must admit 
>that i'm a bit confused by your last mail. Let's pick the 
>figure i sent.
>
>>OC1                               OC2
>>  \    +---+IF2       IF3+---+    /
>>   \IF1|OE1|-------------|OE2|IF4/
>>       +---+             +---+
>>
>>A) Virtual link is from OC1 to OC2
>>B) Virtual link is from IF1 to IF4
>>C) Virtual link is from IF2 to IF3
>
>IB>> My understanding of your picture is this:
>
>OC1------If1:OE1                                     
>OE2:IF4---------OC2
>                       OE1:If2----------------- If3:OE2 My 
>answer : is neither a), b) nor c)
>
>OC1------If1:OE1  ===== VL ======= OE2:IF4---------OC2
>                       OE1:If2----------------- If3:OE2
>
>VL is between OE1 and OE 2, potential server trail is between 
>IF2 and IF3
>
>According to the definition given:
>"A virtual link is a potential path between two virtual or 
>real network elements in a client layer" 
>I would say that a virtual link is from OC1 to OC2, which is A).
>
>IB>> See above
>
>Then, from your latest definition:
>" a potential path between two virtual or real server domain 
>network elements"
>I would say that a virtual link can be either B) or C).
>IB>> See above
>
>Then you speak about access links, which implies that the link 
>between OC1 and OE1 has its own dignity and hence that the 
>virtual link is C) in picture above. 
>
>IB>> Links OC1- OE1 and OC2-OE2 are access links
>
>Now i have 2 questions:
>
>Q1: can you confirm that a virtual link is C)? Then we need to 
>update the definition of a virtual link removing any 
>misleading reference to client/server domain Network elements 
>and speak about OCs and OEs.  
>
>Q2: if on the other side we considered the virtual link being 
>B) (i.e. From IF1 to IF4 hence with an "implicit" node 
>connectivity matrix) which would be the drawbacks of this solution?
>
>IB>>  VL cannot start on a customer facing interface. OE is a 
>(blocking) 
>IB>> switch between access and virtual TE links
>
>
>Thanks
>Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com]
>>Sent: lunedì 17 dicembre 2012 21.12
>>To: Gert Grammel; Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
>>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
>>
>>Gert,
>>
>>Please, see in line. I disagree with pretty much everything you say. 
>>Igor
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 
>On Behalf 
>>Of Gert Grammel
>>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:27 AM
>>To: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
>>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
>>
>>Daniele,
>>
>>Thank you for summarizing the current state of discussion. To move 
>>forward and to encourage comments, let me point to some of the issues 
>>that are debated:
>>
>>1) Virtual Link: in the terminology statement a virtual link seems to 
>>connect two client elements.
>>IB>> The definition says:
>>"1. Virtual Link: A virtual link is a potential path between two 
>>virtual or real network elements in a client layer", what makes you 
>>think that anyone ever applied that this is a path between client 
>>devices? The definition should say, though: " a potential 
>path between 
>>two virtual or real server domain network elements"
>>
>> However later on the 3) virtual topology is composed of access links 
>>and virtual links. Hence. Virtual links connect server nodes, not 
>>client nodes.
>>IB>> see above
>>
>> By doing so, segments (AL and VL) are created.
>>
>>2) The scalability consideration in the appendix for VL is based on 
>>terminology 1) rather than on virtual topology
>>
>>IB>> I completely disagree with this, see below
>>
>>3). This way it doesn't describe then the  scalability of a virtual 
>>topology (which doesn't necessitate a full mesh) but rather that of a 
>>virtual node (which implies a full connectivity matrix).
>>
>>To sum up:
>>1) we have to come up with a crisp definition of a VL in a virtual 
>>topology that is different from a terminology 1) VL.
>>Here is a gap
>>2) A Model based on a vitual node or 'terminology 1) links' 
>>create n**2 problems on client side and does not scale.
>>3) 'VNT'-virtual-links 3) and access links are supposed to 
>address the 
>>scaling problem. We need to clean up our terminology. 
>Otherwise we end 
>>up associating limitations of terminology 1) links with 
>VNT-links that 
>>address those limitations.
>>
>>IB>> It seems to me that you completely misunderstand current 
>>IB>> definitions
>>
>>Now looking at the appendix it sadly reflects the terminology 
>confusion 
>>and jumps to assessment and conclusions. That's unfortunate:
>>
>>The first line says:
>>Some notes on the Virtual Node:
>>1.      Virtual Link Model along, sadly,
>>--> is it now about virtual nodes or virtual links or VNT links?
>>IB>> Virtual Link Model includes access, inter-domain and
>>virtual links
>>IB>> but does not include virtual nodes
>>
>>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
>>--> that's why access links are so useful. They end at server nodes 
>>--> which are connected via virtual links
>>
>>IB>> A combination of access and virtual links alone *does not
>>address N**2 problem*.
>>Consider 1000 client devices connected via 1000 access links to the 
>>network that need to be fully interconnected. You will need 
>1000000 VLs 
>>to do so. You need to have one or more Virtual Nodes in the middle of 
>>the virtual topology to solve this issue. Overlay Network Topology is 
>>no different from real network topology, and real network 
>topologies do 
>>include Ps, not just PEs
>> 
>>3.      These intermediate nodes cannot be real server domain 
>>switches, because, generally speaking:
>>--> in case of VNT-VLs no intermediate nodes are necessarily required
>>IB>> See  above, IMO you are dead wrong
>>
>>4.  --> No need to comment, this way doesn't scale anyway.
>>IB>> ONTs with virtual nodes scale no worse that real network
>>topologies
>>
>>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
>>--> who is 'you' that computes? A client selects among VNT
>>virtual links based on exposed SRLGs, VLs are computed by the server 
>>with full knowledge of constraints. So what does an 'internal' SRLG 
>>mean to a server path computation?
>>
>>IB>> You is the client path computer. If the two paths are
>>going through
>>IB>> the same node, they may overlap inside the node, which 
>means they 
>>IB>> can be brought down by a single network failure. That's why you 
>>IB>> need to expose  node's internal SRLGs or try to find node
>>disjoint
>>IB>> paths (which may not be available)
>>
>>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.
>>--> I suggest to model a complete network of say 5 nodes in a
>>single VN and compare it with the model of a single real node.
>>
>>IB>> Please, do that
>>
>>--> The assessments made have used a terminology definition
>>that doesn't really capture the case made for VNT-VLs.
>>That's why I would have had appreciated to split definitions and work 
>>items agreed among a group from individual assessments in separate 
>>emails.
>>Nevertheless I consider the first part of your email (all except the
>>appendix) as a good starting point for further clarification.
>>
>>Gert
>>________________________________________
>>From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
>>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:17:08 PM
>>To: CCAMP
>>Subject: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
>>
>>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
>>
>