[CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context

"BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 19 December 2012 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.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 0BEB521F8A1F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:47:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 D4FyxivSbKJW for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057D421F8A4B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id qBJFkntY013252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:47:04 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.39]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:46:50 +0100
From: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:46:48 +0100
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: Ac3cSA0EmhmMt2XQR3eDsLDm5eAESgAPpvQAAFPqDzAABwf3gAACrXmgAABSnBA=
Message-ID: <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D822403FB33C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50D1D8A1.3060807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045378@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045378@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: it-IT
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: it-IT, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] 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: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:47:13 -0000

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