Furthre draft to OIF : VCAT
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 16 December 2008 17:34 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A993A6AB0 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rN614JGbzpFR for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDCD28C0DC for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1LCdih-000HrF-Pw for ccamp-data0@psg.com; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:28:31 +0000
Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1LCdiZ-000HqE-HZ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:28:28 +0000
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id mBGHSJXc017617 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:28:21 GMT
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBGHSHc8017542 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:28:18 GMT
Message-ID: <F680786C03DB44EB8668C77F530E8707@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Furthre draft to OIF : VCAT
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:28:12 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>
Hi, Review and comment please. Thanks, Adrian ==== Dear Lyndon, In your communication oif2007.377.02.pdf you made several comments about our VCAT/LCAS work, but did not specifically request any response. In communication oif2008.063.02.pdf you said: > We would also appreciate any feedback that you might have on > our liaison from the 4Q2007 meeting on VCAT/LCAS requirements, > especially whether these were incorporated into your work on > VCAT/LCAS support. This response addresses the points you made in the earlier communication. You wrote: > We have been monitoring with great interest the work on > VCAT/LCAS support in the IETF CCAMP WG, as we have done > prototyping work on control of VCAT/LCAS for interoperability > events in 2005 and 2007. As a result of our internal > discussion and prototyping work, we have identified a number > of requirements on VCAT/LCAS support that we believe are > important and may be helpful input to your work. > > In general, we agree with the requirements already identified > in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03.txt. Please note that this draft is now at the 06 revision and may be found as draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-06.txt > The following have been identified as important functionality > for control plane support for VCAT/LCAS that is not currently > identified in the CCAMP draft: > > - Ability to identify link endpoint capabilities associated > with VCAT such as support of LCAS functionality > - Possible additional requirement on ASON routing support > to be taken into account in CCAMP work on ASON routing > extensions rather than the VCAT/LCAS draft itself > - This might be generalizable to advertising inverse > multiplexing capabilities in addition to VCAT/LCAS CCAMP did consider extensions to IGPs to distribute inverse multiplexing, VCAT, and LCAS capabilities. This information would allow the initiator of a VCG to understand the capabilities of the egress that it is attempting to connect to. However, we decided that the LSP will not be set up to a different destination based on the VCAT capabilities. The LSP is required between a pair of LSRs, and there is no benefit to routing in distributing the end-point capabilities. Thus, we decided that if any negotiation is needed, it should be performed on the Call. > - Clean separation of VCG (VCAT Group) control from the > control of VCG members > - Supports the ability to create and modify the VCG > independent of its members We believe that this is exactly what our draft does. > - Supports potentially different sequences of creation, > e.g., creation of members first followed by VCG creation > or creation of VCG first followed by its members We believe that the ITU Recommendations that define VCAT do not support this behavior. We are also not convinced that this would be a valid way of operating a network - trails are not created on the off-chance that they will be used as part of a VCG at some time in the future. > - A single separate signaling session associated with the > VCG is an approach that has been prototyped successfully > in OIF interop events and may be a possible approach. While the use of a separate signaling session to establish the VCG is a fine way to conduct an experiment to establish data plane interoperability, this is not a good architectural solution for RSVP-TE. The signaling exchange of an RSVP-TE Path and Resv message is intended to establish an LSP. The coordination between end points for VCAT is far closer to the processes necessary for a Call, and that is why we have used the RSVP-TE Notify message exchange in our draft. > - We believe the current approach in the CCAMP draft has > limitations in this respect due to the incorporation of > multiple VCGs within a single call, as this does not > cleanly separate the VCG state and the state of its > component members. We suggest that CCAMP consider using a > single call per VCG instead, based on our prototyping > experiences. This may reflect some misunderstanding of the CCAMP draft. The draft currently allows a one-to-one correlation between Call and VCG. Component members are, of course, associated with the VCG and so the state of the component members is directly associated with the state of the VCG itself. > - Separation of VCG and member sessions will allow > unambiguous semantics for VCG characteristics vs. member > characteristics such as support of recovery modes Again, this may represent some misunderstanding of the CCAMP draft. The draft allows each LSP (VCG member) to be maintained with distinct characteristics. > - Ability to identify VCG members within VCG-related > signaling > - Note that it may be common in ASON environments for a VCG > connection to span multiple domains and RSVP sessions in > series, in which case session-specific objects such as > the LSP ID and Tunnel ID are not guaranteed to have > unique values end-to-end > - Manipulation of VCG characteristics requires the ability > to clearly and unambiguously identify the VCG members at > each end of the VCG We note that "session shuffling" is peculiar to the OIF way of addressing the ASON architecture, and the CCAMP working group has previously expressed its view that such a way of building a network, while functional, is not advisable. Since the OIF presumably has a solution to the fact that any one connection must be unambiguously identifiable at each end of the connection, we do not consider that the problem is exacerbated by the construction of a VCG. Indeed, session shuffling can only work if there is a consistent, coherent, repeatable, and reversible mapping of the various parameters (such as addresses, Tunnel ID, and LSP ID) at domain boundaries. That said, we believe that the ASON architecture is currently struggling with issues of diverse routes of connections that provide protection. It has normally been the case that protection is terminated at domain boundaries (at E-NNIs), and this may also be the case for VCGs. > - Ability to maintain VCG state across control plane failures > - It is important to be able to maintain the VCG in the > event of temporary loss of control plane connectivity or > control plane state > - We believe that graceful restart-like capabilities in > RSVP need to be supported to maintain VCG state across > control plane failure. You are correct that the control plane state must be recoverable after control plane component restart, and must be resynchronized after control plane connectivity recovery. Further, the data plane state must not be perturbed by control plane failure or restart. Graceful restart is a standard part of GMPLS RSVP-TE. It can be found in RFC 5063. A more detailed description (including a discussion of the handling of multiple failures) can be found in draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-03.txt which is currently being reviewed by the IESG prior to publication as an RFC. Restart processing for GMPLS Calls is covered in RFC 4974. The VCAT work simply re-uses these mechanisms and no further description is required. Regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs
- Furthre draft to OIF : VCAT Adrian Farrel