Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 December 2012 15:32 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 7973221F8696 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:32:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.582, 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 6x-HhK3yqkmo for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869D221F8621 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-e3-50d1ddf20586
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FF.3B.10459.2FDD1D05; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:32:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.209]) by ESESSHC023.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:32:02 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: Ac3cSA0EmhmMt2XQR3eDsLDm5eAESgAPpvQAAFPqDzAABwf3gAACrXmg
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:32:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045378@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50D1D8A1.3060807@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50D1D8A1.3060807@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6nuxcDDJb+07B4MucGi0VH81sW ByaPJUt+Mnl82NTMFsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx6tpv1oLvcRU7Npxha2D87tPFyMkhIWAi MXHXa2YIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAocYJQ4+/sAM4SxhlDh6tQHI4eBgE7CSeHIIrFlEQFHi68dF TCA2s4CUxN1bXYwgtrCAhcTatQcZIWosJZpWT2eFsN0k5ne1sYHYLAKqEpPWHAFbzCvgLTFh zkdWiF1HGSUeXVgB1sApoCFx8/oGsAZGAVmJCbsXMUIsE5e49WQ+E8TVAhJL9pyH+kBU4uXj f6wQtqLEzrPtzBD1ehI3pk5hg7C1JZYtfA21WFDi5MwnLBMYxWYhGTsLScssJC2zkLQsYGRZ xciem5iZk15uuIkRGCUHt/zW3cF46pzIIUZpDhYlcd4w1wsBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanF hxiZODilGhg1/xjPFljQeeWrX6ZXTcnCDVqRb3SvSCy57Xt+s+Zaz19Pb7g2Xu0+mv1u7b1M aQkJKRWRc/23SjTvTZilYPZpvl/1eVHBzKbFXIrOlzg4HTK/rM+5y7Ik0NOUcS/z4/0NZioS 3kZcebEFl44penmL7VebkLhOy9g1oNVB4X190buth7J+GyixFGckGmoxFxUnAgCe3tQ0YAIA AA==
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 15:32:05 -0000
Lou, it's just a matter of convenience. Why should is say: "customer interface/link between an OE and an OC in the overlay model context supporting both signaling and routing message exchange that is called UNI when only signaling is supported" ...when i could simply say: ONI? :) BR Daniele >-----Original Message----- >From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >Sent: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 16.09 >To: Daniele Ceccarelli >Cc: CCAMP >Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > >Daniele, > see below. > > >On 12/19/2012 5:56 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: >> 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 have no idea what this means. I suspect it relates to >comments below, so will discuss there. > >> 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? >> > >How about: > >An OC is analogous to an L3VPN CE, and an OE is analogous to >an L3VPN PE (with a provider based VPN). > >>> >>> - 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? > >Because redundant/unnecessary terminology only obfuscates. > >Why not customer interface/link? This has been sufficient for L3VPNs. > >> >>> >>> 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. >> > >How about inter-provider interface/link? Again, this has been >sufficient for L3VPNs. > >Lou > >>> >>> 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