[CCAMP] 答复: Overlay model framework and context
Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 01:44 UTC
Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.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 D379421F8A5D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:44:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.861
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 RtYoLDAKxxMl for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1022721F89EB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMQ85348; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:44:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:44:18 +0000
Received: from SZXEML428-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.36) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:44:28 +0000
Received: from SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.142]) by szxeml428-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.36]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:44:24 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: Ac3cSA0EmhmMt2XQR3eDsLDm5eAESgAA+90AAFIdqgAADaepgAAL4JUAABWmQyA=
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:44:24 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835841B4C@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191012D6@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <50D248B8.1090506@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50D248B8.1090506@labn.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复: 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 01:44:36 -0000
Hi all, Support. People are more familiar with the existing things like "access links" and "inter-domain links" (or E-NNI links). Best Regards Fatai -----邮件原件----- 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou Berger 发送时间: 2012年12月20日 7:08 收件人: Igor Bryskin 抄送: CCAMP 主题: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor, You said: IB>> I like "access links" and "inter-domain links" better. This works for me. Lou On 12/19/2012 12:27 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote: > Lou, please see my answers to your questions > > -----Original Message----- > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:57 AM > To: Lou Berger > Cc: CCAMP > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > > 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"? > > IB>> Client layer is where Overlay Network topology exists. It includes: > a) access links (connecting OCs to OEs) > b) virtual links (connecting OE / OVNs (Overlay Virtual Nodes) within a given server domain) > c) inter-domain links (connecting OE to OE that belong to neighboring server domains) > All three categories exist in the same client layer and named from the same naming space > > 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"? > > IB>> It is the layer where the UNT (Underlay Network Topology) exists (which may be in the same, lower or higher layer network than of the ONT) > > 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. > IB>> agree > > In the case of the interface we generally define the ONI as an overlay interface that in a particular case is called UNI. 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? > >> >> - As you mention in the Appendix, (from the OC perspective) there is no >> difference between a virtual and real node > IB>> Agree > > (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? > > IB>> As long as it allows for both or either signaling and/or routing exchanges > >> >> 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. > > IB>> I like "access links" and "inter-domain links" better. Note also that a "link" and "node" are TE topology concepts and orthogonal to CP interfaces (which are Signaling/Routing speakers). If you mean by "internal" and "external" links the CP connectivity, than I agree with you. > >> >> 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
- 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