[Pce] Infomral status presented to ITU
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 29 June 2006 08:59 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvsMa-0001Af-KG; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:59:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvsMZ-0001AL-UL for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:59:03 -0400
Received: from mail1.noc.data.net.uk ([80.68.34.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvsMO-0008GP-VD for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:59:01 -0400
Received: from 57-99.dsl.data.net.uk ([80.68.57.99] helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by mail1.noc.data.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1FvsMV-00022c-00 for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:58:59 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([194.94.109.154] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:58:46 +0100
Message-ID: <006201c69b5a$381351f0$9a6d5ec2@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:54:59 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
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 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2006 08:58:46.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AF7FB50:01C69B5A]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a0494a0224ca59418dd8f92694c1fdb
Cc:
Subject: [Pce] Infomral status presented to ITU
X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Hi, I am at the Study Group 15, Question 14 interim meeting, and I was asked to present the status of IETF work related to the control plane for optical networks. Below is my text. Note that is was not a formal liaison, but an informal communication. Thanks, Adrian === Introduction In response to several requests, this contribution provides an interim and unofficial status of the activities within the IETF that are pertinent to optical networking. Overview Work continues to progress within the IETF in many working groups that are relevant to the activities of Study Group 15. Of most direct relevance to Question 14/15 are the activities in the Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) working group, the Path Computation Element (PCE) working group, and the Layer One Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) working group. CCAMP is responsible for the development and maintenance of the GMPLS family of protocols including signaling extensions for RSVP-TE, and routing extensions for OSPF and IS-IS. It also looks after LMP and LMP-WDM. CCAMP is also working on the frameworks and protocol extensions for multi-domain and multi-layer networks. The PCE working group is developing the architecture, requirements, protocols, and applicability for the Path Computation Element - a functional element responsible for determining paths (routes) that may span multiple domains. The L1VPN working group is responsible for the development of GMPLS protocol extensions and applicabilities in support of a service model that involves the supply by a service provider of layer one connectivity between customer sites. Recent Activity Control of TDM Switches a. Revision of RFC 3946 RFC 3946 is titled Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control. This RFC was published in October 2004, is stable, has been implemented by multiple vendors, and is deployed with live traffic. Recent exchanges with the OIF exposed some issues of clarity, and a minor editorial revision (equivalent to an Amendment within the ITU-T) was published as draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946-bis-01.txt in December 2005. This draft has now been fully reviewed by the IETF community and has been accepted for publication as an RFC. It is expected that it will be published within the next few months. b. Diversely routed VCAT groups RFC 3946 provides mechanisms for establishing and maintaining LSPs in support of virtual concatenation where the members of a VCG are co-routed; that is, where all group members follow the same path through the network. Recently, hardware vendors have become confident in their technical solutions to support diversely routed VCG members and have asked for protocol solutions to be developed. Members of the CCAMP working group are currently specifying the requirements for this work including the use of LCAS, and it is anticipated that this will soon become official CCAMP work. The development of appropriate protocol solutions has already been discussed and will most likely follow quickly after the requirements work. ASON Signaling a. Requirements Following from the completion of RFC 4139 (Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) which was the product of successful cooperation and liaison between SG15 and CCAMP, CCAMP has also published RFC 4397 (A Lexicography for the Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within the Context of the ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Architecture). RFC 4397 required extensive liaisons, discussion, and face-to-face meetings before both the CCAMP working group and SG15 were satisfied with its contents. This RFC provides the tools necessary to assess the GMPLS signaling protocol RFCs and determine how they may be used to satisfy the requirements set out in RFC 4139. b. Toolkit The CCAMP working group has just completed work on an important item in the protocol toolkit. Although not aimed directly at the ASON environment, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call (Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls) has clear applicability to ASON. This work has completed working group last call and will receive a few minor editorial changes before advancing for wider IETF review and publication as an RFC. c. Solutions The CCAMP working group believes that all building blocks are now in place to use GMPLS signaling protocols to satisfy the ASON signaling requirements as expressed in RFC 4139. In particular, this includes the provision of signaling at the UNI, E-NNI, and I-NNI. CCAMP will soon start work on an Applicability Statement to document how the requirements are met, and it is anticipated that this will be liaised to Q14/15 as work in progress. d. Inter-working CCAMP recognizes that an important concern for some people is how they can achieve inter-working of G.7713.x (x = 1, 2, or 3) or OIF UNI reference points on either side of a domain where the I-NNI is achieved using GMPLS signaling protocols. Clearly this needs to be achieved using a standardized approach so that I-NNI nodes will not be disrupted, and so that UNI-N implementations can cooperate. It is also CCAMP's intention to produce an Applicability Statement for this situation, and it is anticipated that this work will be liaised to Q14/15 as work in progress. ASON Routing a. Requirements RFC 4258 (Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) is the best evidence we have that the IETF, ITU-T, and OIF communities can work together. This document, finally published in November 2005, concentrates on the routing requirements placed on the GMPLS suite of protocols in order to support the capabilities and functionalities of an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by the ITU-T. It was produced by a joint team of people from (although not representing) there three bodies, and was agreed only after careful liaison with Q14/15. b. Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval was also a collaborative effort and, as well as experts from the OIF and SG15, the team included IETF routing protocol experts. The draft which has been reviewed by the IESG and the IETF community, and is ready for publication as an RFC, examines the requirements set out in RFC 4258 and compares them against the capabilities of the IETF routing protocols. Some small lacunae are identified as requiring protocol extensions. c. Solutions Design of the necessary protocol extensions to complete a solution that meets the requirements laid out in RFC 4258 (i.e. to supply the missing pieces identified in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval) is well progressed in the IETF. draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-sol-01 published in March proposes protocol solutions, and has just been split into separate work items for OSPF and IS-IS. Discussions are well advanced with the appropriate IGP working groups so that CCAMP will be able to adopt this work soon, and we have received indications that the OIF is looking to the completion of this work in order to determine a final E-NNI routing solution. d. PCE The Path Computation Element (PCE) is receiving attention in Q14/15 through the work on G.7715.2. The PCE working group has made good advances in the determination of an architecture and requirements statements. These have completed work in the working group and have been reviewed by the IESG. While work continues to develop a suitable communications protocol for path queries, the working group is also examining the applicability of PCE to inter-layer scenarios. Some clarification from SG15 of whether such scenarios are within the scope of the ASON model may be beneficial to the work in the PCE working group. Control-Plane / Management-Plane Migration A recent liaison from SG15 to CCAMP highlighted some of the problems with the concept of migrating an existing LSP between the control plane and the management plane. This has proven to be extremely useful to CCAMP members in developing a concise set of requirements for this function within specific and limited environments. There appears to be significant support from carriers for this work, and it is likely to progress within the CCAMP working group first as a requirements statement and then with the addition of simple signaling protocol extensions. Future Cooperation The CCAMP working group co-chairs plan to send a formal liaison to SG15 to communicate about CCAMP progress shortly after the IETF meeting that will be held in Montreal at the start of July. The CCAMP, L1VPN and PCE working groups always welcome questions and contributions from all sources on their mailing lists which have open access to everyone. More substantial contributions are welcomed in the form of Internet-Drafts. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
- [Pce] Infomral status presented to ITU Adrian Farrel