Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 December 2012 10:56 UTC
Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.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 EB10721F8801 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.873, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=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_MED=-4]
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 NbZ7fsFz1mX8 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85A421F8821 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:56:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f736d0000010de-90-50d19d619092
Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 13.62.04318.16D91D05; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:56:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.209]) by ESESSHC009.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.45]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:56:33 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: Ac3cSA0EmhmMt2XQR3eDsLDm5eAESgAPpvQAAFPqDzA=
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:56:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50CF764E.603@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7i3IsBBp9Wy1o8mXODxaKj+S2L A5PHkiU/mTw+bGpmC2CK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MrYe+46S8GRwIovp+6yNTBudupi5OCQEDCR +LiQu4uRE8gUk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAIUaJDf/PskM4SxglrvdeZgZpYBOwknhyyAekQURAUeLr x0VMIDazgJTE3VtdjCC2sICFxNq1BxkhaiwlmlZPZ4WwrSSe9b4Aq2cRUJV48PAAO4jNK+At sWzSYxYQW0ggVeLEnkPMIDangIpEx+UVbCA2o4CsxITdixghdolL3HoynwniaAGJJXvOM0PY ohIvH/9jhbAVJT6+2gdVrydxY+oUNghbW2LZwtfMEHsFJU7OfMIygVFsFpKxs5C0zELSMgtJ ywJGllWM7LmJmTnp5eabGIERcnDLb4MdjJvuix1ilOZgURLnDXe9ECAkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRf VJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBUaR9DU+WQWWCMV9W1GVjpcxk94sfjv389Nr2T0vVxxu7jBIFo1MuZl6T eLs+faGVYdx3l/b6rOfVTwodkpy0ygqt7vqZ3Hh8a4Pzlz4Zi7+a+yUM9v6dse34g+klkZsm vZH4dfnzmauZviovvp3+WvX+bVJR7sIctgsGC7fc8p2duSik/UlvjhJLcUaioRZzUXEiAP7V nVdeAgAA
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:56:37 -0000
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 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 (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? > >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. > >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 >> >
- 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