Re: [CCAMP] Next steps on overlay

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Deborah, all,

agree that it's time to sum up.

As agreed in Atlanta draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-model<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-model-01.txt> will be updated in the next days so to reflect the discussions of the last months on the list and will try to reflect all the topics where there is no consensus and, if available, list all the proposed alternatives.

Basically:

- The overall doc will reflect my latest summary (v2) including the following comments basically from Lou and Igor.
- The terminology part will be based at the time being on VPNs (but open to be modified if needed)
- Use cases: will try to cover the ones in the E-NNI and L1VPN drafts. If more of them are needed please contact me.
- Description of the different advertisement models and service models. Basically we are defining a general topology service model so that existing VPN service models are particular cases of it.
- Relationship with MLN/MRN: the overlay interfaces does not necessarily need to be placed on a link between different technology domains (e.g. IP and WSON) but could be placed also withing the same NE between two layer of the same technology (e.g. an OTN deployment where the ODU3 layer is managed as a provided network providing connectivity between ODU2s which form the client network).

In addition, wrt latest discussion on Additional Overlay Protocol Extensions i think that's meat for the second document on the advertisement, where for each of them we need to say which info is needed AND NOT HOW IT ENCODED OR TRANSPORTED. This final part will be addressed in the third document dedicated to protocol extensions (this was the agreement in Atlanta and i think there is no reason to move from that).

It is definitely too early to move to doc #3 but we could start working on #2. Most of its content, wrt the Virtual Links advertisement model (former E-NNI) has already been widely explained by Igor and Lou, which seem to disagree on HOW to carry the info but not on WHICH of them are needed.

BR
Daniele


________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: giovedì 24 gennaio 2013 21.04
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CCAMP] Next steps on overlay

CCAMP,

There's been quite a bit of discussion on the list, we'd like to see progress on this topic. Perhaps we've reached the point where it's time to update/author drafts to reflect current positions. This can either be done in one document or in multiple (authors' choice).

We also note that multiple viewpoints on how overlays may be deployed/operated have been discussed. We suggest that documenting these use cases, including data plane and control plane relationships/boundaries, would be helpful.

Thanks,
Deborah and Lou
CCAMP Chairs