Re: Updates on draft GMPLS LSP Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 4, 2007:9:43 PM, at 9:43 PM, Weiqiang Sun wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We have updated the GMPLS LSP DPPM draft recently (see announcement  
> below). The draft has received positive responses after the last  
> CCAMP meeting. A discussion group was later setup by Guoying Zhang  
> (RITT, MII of China). Thanks for those who has participated in the  
> group and gave suggestions. In particular, we would like to thank  
> Monique Morrow (Cisco) for indicating a new draft in benchmarking  
> WG related to RSVP-TE performance authored by Cisco folks (http:// 
> www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vapiwala-bmwg-rsvpte-convergence- 
> motivation-00.txt). We regard this as interests in GMPLS  
> performance, whose progress will help motivating and progressing  
> the GMPLS LSP DPPM draft.
>
>
>
> The major improvements in this version include:
>
> 1) We modified the intro part to state the fact that the metrics  
> defined are also applicable for TE-MIB inclusion, as may be  
> interest of carriers to monitor the control plane performance in  
> realtime, through NMS.

	Just to be precise, do you mean RFC3812?  That is called the MPLS-TE- 
STD-MIB in case you do.

	--Tom

> 2) We corrected some error pointed out by X. Wei(Fiberhome) and J.  
> Gao(Huawei).
>
> 3) We changed the measurement unit from "seconds" to "milli- 
> seconds" as devices that have an averaged per-node processing delay  
> of less than 100ms is readily available.
>
>
>
> During preparation of this version, there has been controversy on  
> whether and how LSP rerouting metrics should be added to the draft.  
> Carriers have shown their interest in this metric. However, it  
> seems to us that the measurement of rerouting time will inevitably  
> change the simplicity of methodologies that have been introduced in  
> the draft so far, and the measurement may also be tightly coupled  
> with implementations. Finally Guoying and I would rather leave it  
> to the working group for possible suggestions and solutions.
>
>
>
> Please kindly give your comments and suggestions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Weiqiang Sun
>
> Shanghai Jiao Tong University
>
>
>
> To: i-d-announce at ietf.org
>
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-01.txt
>
> From: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
>
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:50:01 -0400
>
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>
> directories.
>
>
>
>
>
>          Title           : Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical  
> Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks
>
>          Author(s)  : G. Xie, et al.
>
>          Filename : draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-01.txt
>
>          Pages                : 34
>
>          Date          : 2007-5-30
>
> …
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-01.txt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monique Morrow [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:54 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS'; 'zhangguoying'; 'Han Jianghui';  
> 'blithe'; 'xqwei'; 'gjhhit'; 'lufang'; 'i-nishioka';  
> 'julien.meuric'; 'MORTON, ALFRED C, JR. (AL), ATTLABS'; 'Weisheng  
> HU'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: New discussion group formed on draft GMPLS LSP DPPM
>
>
>
> I shall do this -- stay tuned!
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/25/07 9:38 PM, "Weiqiang Sun" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Monique,
>
> >
>
> > It's nice that we have one other language in common :)
>
> >
>
> > Last month when Fred Baker visited SJTU, we were given five  
> minutes to
>
> > introduce the draft. Mr. Baker showed interest in this and we also
>
> > mentioned your involvement in this :).
>
> >
>
> > We are happy to see that cisco folks also started to work on this,
>
> > though in BMWG. It would be great if you could kindly introduce the
>
> > authors of the draft into this discussion group and possiblly  
> arrange a
>
> > discussion in the next ietf meeting for us, which I believe will
>
> > increase mutual understanding and help fasten the standardization
>
> > process of metrics and related methodologies.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Weiqiang
>
> > SJTU
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 2007-05-25 08:06 -0700，Monique Morrow Wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Nimen hao!
>
> >>
>
> >> Your timing is perfect as I was about to ping you on the draft.
>
> >>
>
> >> You may want to look at new draft for possible harmonization  
> with the GMPLS
>
> >> LSP DDPM draft:
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vapiwala-bmwg-rsvpte- 
> convergence-m
>
> >> otivation-00.txt
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Kind regards,
>
> >>
>
> >> Monique
>
> >>
>
> >> On 5/25/07 1:35 AM, "Weiqiang Sun" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Hi all,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> We have just updated the draft GMPLS LSP DPPM according the  
> feedbacks we get
>
> >>> since its publication on IETF website. Many thanks to those who  
> have given
>
> >>> valuable suggestions and also to Adrian and Deborah for  
> allocating the slot
>
> >>> in the last meeting.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The major improvements are:
>
> >>> 1) We modified the intro part to state the fact that the  
> metrics defined are
>
> >>> also applicable for TE-MIB inclusion, as may be interest of  
> carriers to
>
> >>> monitor the control plane performance in realtime, through NMS.
>
> >>> 2) We corrected some error pointed out by X. Wei(Fiberhome) and J.
>
> >>> Gao(Huawei).
>
> >>> 3) We changed the measurement unit from "seconds" to "milli- 
> seconds" as
>
> >>> devices that have an averaged per-node processing delay of less  
> than 100ms
>
> >>> is readily available.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The updated draft is attached for your review, before we submit  
> it to IETF
>
> >>> for publication. Please give your comments.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Thanks and regards.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Weiqiang
>
> >>> SJTU
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>> From: Weiqiang Sun [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:11 PM
>
> >>> To: 'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS'; 'Monique Morrow';  
> 'zhangguoying'; 'Han
>
> >>> Jianghui'; 'blithe'; 'xqwei'; 'gjhhit'; 'lufang'; 'i-nishioka';
>
> >>> 'julien.meuric'; 'MORTON, ALFRED C, JR. (AL), ATTLABS'
>
> >>> Cc: 'Weisheng HU'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
>
> >>> Subject: RE: New discussion group formed on draft GMPLS LSP DPPM
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Hi all,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> It is really nice to have all of you together to discuss this  
> draft. The
>
> >>> draft team has had a difficult time when the draft was in its  
> primary stage
>
> >>> months ago. Now I believe your valuable suggestions and  
> comments will make
>
> >>> it a lot easier.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> As you may be aware, the draft deals only with control plane  
> performance, in
>
> >>> terms of circuit provisioning capability. One reason that  
> justifies this
>
> >>> work, IMHO, is that the control plane not only automates the  
> provisioning
>
> >>> process, but more importantly, it also significantly reduces  
> the setup
>
> >>> delay. This opens up opportunities for applications or services  
> that rely on
>
> >>> dynamically provisioned circuits. One such application has been  
> implemented
>
> >>> in a GMPLS testbed in Eastern China. However, up to date, there  
> is no
>
> >>> systematic way to evaluate the provisioning performance of the  
> control
>
> >>> plane, especially when the circuit hold-time is comparable with  
> or several
>
> >>> times the provisioning delay. A set of standardized metrics  
> that vividly
>
> >>> characterize the performance of control plane will definitely  
> increase the
>
> >>> confidence of applying GMPLS networks in the most natural way  
> and help to
>
> >>> design a proper timing model.
>
> >>> At the same time, as you may have seen in Guoying's talk during  
> the last WG
>
> >>> meeting, although variations are observed for all traffic loads
>
> >>> (dynamicity), higher load will lead to higher variation in  
> provisioning
>
> >>> delay. As control plane scalability and resilience issues are  
> getting into
>
> >>> our sight, a set of standardized metrics will hopefully  
> stimulate the
>
> >>> improvement of control plane implementations, e.g., using hardware
>
> >>> acceleration to reduce the processing time and variation. A  
> reliable and
>
> >>> stable control plane implementation will in turn encourage novel
>
> >>> applications being devised.
>
> >>> Hope Monique would be satisfied with this in regarding to  
> question 2. :)
>
> >>>
>
> >>> As to the metrics themselves, the existing ones are merely  
> about control
>
> >>> plane performance, with no regard to CP DP synchronization.  
> This is the most
>
> >>> lightweight solution we can think of so far and is reasonable  
> when the time
>
> >>> needed to establish a local XC is neglectable if compared with  
> signaling
>
> >>> processing delay. If this is not the case, still, we can use  
> the control
>
> >>> plane delay, plus a constant representing the XC operation  
> overhead.
>
> >>> By the term provisioning, we have intended to describe  
> application models
>
> >>> that circuits are established PRIOR to data transfer. This is  
> different from
>
> >>> the reroute model, where data transfer are ongoing and the  
> rerouting
>
> >>> procedure will eventually leads to packet loss (or service  
> interruption).
>
> >>> Thus a more reasonable metric that describes rerouting  
> performance, in my
>
> >>> opinion, would be packet loss, or service interruption time,  
> not delay (in
>
> >>> the control plane's point of view).It seems to me that  
> measurement of GMPLS
>
> >>> LSP rerouting is very similar to measurement of MPLS  
> protection, which is
>
> >>> now been defined in BMWG. Personally, I suggest we initiate  
> another draft to
>
> >>> deal of LSP rerouting, with reference to MPLS protection in  
> BMWG. Hopefully
>
> >>> we can get more suggestions from Al in this direction.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> For the first question raised by Monique, I have nothing to say  
> by now since
>
> >>> we are still working on the mentioned documents. Should you  
> have any
>
> >>> comments, please let us know.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> For the discussion group, we have a new member, Dr. Huandong  
> Zhao from China
>
> >>> Telecom Shanghai Research Institute.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Cheers,
>
> >>> Weiqiang
>
> >>> SJTU
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>> From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:56 AM
>
> >>> To: Monique Morrow; zhangguoying; Weiqiang Sun; Han Jianghui;  
> blithe; xqwei;
>
> >>> gjhhit; lufang; i-nishioka; julien.meuric; MORTON, ALFRED C,  
> JR. (AL),
>
> >>> ATTLABS
>
> >>> Subject: RE: New discussion group formed on draft GMPLS LSP DPPM
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Hi all,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I've added Al's address-
>
> >>> Deborah
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>> From: Monique Morrow [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:16 AM
>
> >>> To: zhangguoying; Weiqiang Sun; 'Han Jianghui'; 'blithe';  
> 'xqwei'; 'gjhhit';
>
> >>> BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS; lufang; i-nishioka; julien.meuric
>
> >>> Subject: Re: New discussion group formed on draft GMPLS LSP DPPM
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Greetings colleagues,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> This is an excellent proposal in terms of focused dialogue with  
> regard to
>
> >>> this topic.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> To progress:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> - Important is note what work has been done in this direction   
> <Al Morton
>
> >>> has done quite a bit of work  -- in this direction for example  
> in the ITU
>
> >>> <y.1540, y.1541, y.1542> -- gap analysis as to what is missing;
>
> >>>
>
> >>> - Agreement as to the metrics themselves ;
>
> >>>
>
> >>> - Problem to be solved -- why is this an important ? <somewhat  
> implied in
>
> >>> the draft;
>
> >>>
>
> >>> - Method as to actual mechanism to measure would be last IMHO;
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Looking forward -
>
> >>>
>
> >>> /m
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On 2/4/07 12:08 am, "zhangguoying"  
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Hi all,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Fist of all, I suggest we form a new discussion group to  
> include experts
>
> >>> who
>
> >>>> are interested in the "GMPLS LSP dynamic provisioning  
> performance draft"
>
> >>>> during the IETF 68 meeting.
>
> >>>> Let me say welcome to:
>
> >>>> Julien Meuric, France Telecom,
>
> >>>> Deborah A. Brungard, AT&T,
>
> >>>> Monique Jeanne Morrow, Cisco,
>
> >>>> Luyuan Fang, Cisco
>
> >>>> Itaru Nishioka, NEC
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Deborah would also introduce her colleague Al Morton, chair of  
> the
>
> >>>> benchmarking methodology WG to join our discussion.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The previous discussion group include :
>
> >>>> Guowu Xie,SJTU
>
> >>>> Weiqiang Sun,SJTU
>
> >>>> Guoying Zhang, CATR MII
>
> >>>> Jianghui Han, IXIA
>
> >>>> Xueqing Wei, Fiberhome
>
> >>>> Jianhua Gao, Huawei
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Here are some important suggestions I received during the  
> meeting:
>
> >>>> 1. Hear more voices and comments from the carriers. Currently  
> the draft
>
> >>> could
>
> >>>> be discussed in ccamp group, but may be transfered to the  
> management AD
>
> >>>> later.---- Adrian
>
> >>>> 2. Refer to the work of benchmarking WG. ---- Deborah
>
> >>>> 3. Include the performance metrics of LSP rerouting. These  
> performance
>
> >>> metrics
>
> >>>> would be useful if the GMPLS MIB support monitoring them in  
> deployed
>
> >>>> network.---- Julien
>
> >>>> 4. Define the method on how to measure the performance  
> metrics, and refer
>
> >>> to
>
> >>>> the work of benchmarking WG.  ----Itaru Nishioka
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Next we should discuss the plan for 01 version. I suggest we  
> fist refer to
>
> >>> the
>
> >>>> benchmarking methodology WG work, and consider the possibility of
>
> >>> including
>
> >>>> the LSP rerouting performance in the 01 version.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> 　　　　　　　　zhangguoying
>
> >>>>                Institute of Telecommunication Standards
>
> >>>>                China Academy of Telecom Research ,MII
>
> >>>> 　　　　　　　　[e-mail]
>
> >>>> 　　　　　　　　　　2007-04-02
>
>