Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extensions? (Was: Re: Overlay model framework v2)

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

Required protocol extensions (just to start with):
1. MELGs +VL's committed/uncommitted status advertising
2. Signaling extensions to set correctly client device RSVP timers and to communicate the state and status of underlying server trail (e.g. taking into account delays due to the server trail setup). Issue of RROs: a client device signals the LSP path in terms of VLs/VNs, what about RROs?;
3. ONT  OAM extensions and procedures (how to associate DP alarms/failures happened on real links and nodes with VLs and VNs that depend on them, so that client LSP restoration could be controlled by the client?);
4. VN related extensions (do we need to advertise TE RTR TLV on behalf of a VN, what are the procedures if several real nodes constitute VN, what is the signaling address to use if a VN is selected, etc.);
5. VN connectivity matrix for addressing VN's blocking/asymmetric nature, including the detailed connectivity matrix (entries with associated costs, which will also require signaling extensions: e.g. how to specify in the ERO that a given connectivity matrix entry is selected?);
6. Routing extensions to separate VN's internals from the outside world;
7. Access/inter-domain links LMP extensions;
8. Split-VN specific extensions ( when a blocking real node is presented via several symmetrical VNs, the VN IDs could be assigned and changed  automatically (to remove extra configuration burden), how the client NEs learn that the remote node ID of an access link is (re-)assigned?)
9. Routing extensions to address independent address spaces;
10. VPN related extensions: how to advertise VL's association with one or several VPNs? How to provide VPN-specific VN's connectivity matrix;
11. Etc.

All of the above mentioned things obviously cannot be done without a well-understood framework with, yes, tightly defined definitions.
Hence the definitions is a very important start.

Cheers,
Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:22 AM
To: Igor Bryskin
Cc: John E Drake; CCAMP; Stewart Bryant; [e-mail]; 'George Swallow (swallow)'
Subject: Additional overlay protocol extensions? (Was: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2)



On 1/22/2013 1:58 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
>...
> Besides, I believe nothing (terminology, architecture,  protocol  
>solutions, etc.)  of MLN/MRN is relevant to what we are/were trying  to 
>achieve with ONTs.
> 
> Igor
> ...

Igor,

Can we take a step back for a moment from the (seemingly endless) terminology/architecture/framework debate?

What additional (i.e., not already covered in a standalone draft, e.g.,
draft-ali-...) *protocol extensions* do you think need to be standardized (as PS)?

Is it more than just MELG?

Lou