RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW?
"Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Tue, 29 November 2005 08:29 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eh0rL-0002CI-4e; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:29:07 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eh0rI-0002C3-0q for pwe3@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:29:05 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00866 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:28:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [212.25.127.226] (helo=spm-gw.seabridge.co.il) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eh1BI-0001Wp-HC for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:49:46 -0500
Received: from dove.seabridge.co.il ([172.30.10.115]) by spm-gw.seabridge.co.il with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:27:12 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW?
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:27:11 +0200
Message-ID: <347D74C07C4F924091F863CBC284F412190C0B@dove.seabridge.co.il>
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW?
Thread-index: AcX0f2/GqGYbWsgKReCBAVEHBAie6gANaUyA
From: Nurit Sprecher <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>
To: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>, "PWE3 WG (E-mail)" <pwe3@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2005 08:27:12.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[B22F6020:01C5F4BE]
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 853c053a15e5e83137dff862c05cdaff
Cc:
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1667464894=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Luca, Please see my comments in-line. Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Luca Martini Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 02:51 To: PWE3 WG (E-mail) Subject: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? WG, I have many questions about the use of RSVP for MS-PWs. The current draft (draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-03.txt) contains a lot of discussion of why we should use RSVP, but does not contain detail on how to use RSVP to signal PWs. In the IETF we standardize protocols and not arguments. <<<Nurit: I believe that it contains pretty much detail on how to use the RSVP to signal PWs in order to make it an IETF draft. An IETF draft is not an RFC.>>> I still claim that this draft is not ready to be a WG draft, as it does not contain a real complete protocol definition that meets the stated requirements. Let's look at different points that would have to be explained. Traffic engineering of the PW layer has not been a clear requirement, however I believe that traffic engineering of an MPLS network used to carry PWs is a requirement. <<<Nurit: I don't really understand your point. We have the MPLS infrastructure and we still have requirements for TE services (which are emulated by PWs). The service has requirements for example for QoS, for Diffserv TE class, for resiliency (in order to avoid service disruption in case of a failure), traffic priorities, resource affinities, etc. The S-PEs should be aware of such requirements in order to select an appropriate tunnel for the PW. For example, if we have a requirement for a service that it should nut be disturbed for more than 50 ms in case of a failure, the S-PE should know it in order to select a TE Tunnel that is FRR protected. The FRR recovery would be of the TE Tunnel of course, but the S-PE should know this information for the tunnel selection sake (otherwise it should be manually configured with information). If the service needs a certain amount of BW and a certain Diffserv TE class, the S-PEs should be aware of this in order to select the most appropriate tunnel for the PW. And so on.......... For MS PWs, where the S-PE should stitch/switch/whatever the PWs from one Tunnel to another, it should be aware of the requirements for the TE PWs. Either this information is manually configured at each S-PE for each PW or the information is signaled via the control plane. One of the purposes of the control plane is to automate the process, adjust it to live networks and avoid of manual configuration. >>> In today's deployments RSVP-TE is used to setup MPLS tunnels that carry PWs. These tunnels are sometimes dedicated to PWs, and are traffic engineered in the MPLS network along with other MPLS tunnels that may be used for other purposes. One of the main parameters used for TE is bandwidth utilization. If we are proposing to traffic engineer the PW layer itself, then we would presumably be able to select a certain subset of statically pre-configured MPLS-TE tunnels to carry the PWs and reserve the utilized bandwidth once the PW is signaled. <<<Nurit: Why statically pre-configured MPLS-TE tunnels? The tunnels are signaled via the control plane. The PW is configured in the U-PE and signaled along the network, allowing the S-PE to select the most appropriate TE tunnel for the signaled TE PW. TE PWs has requirements for QoS, for a certain Diffserv TE class, they have priority (for pre-emption), they have requirement for resiliency, etc. This should be signaled to provide the S-PEs with this information in order to find the most appropriate tunnel.>>> Traffic engineering of PW would mean that S-PEs are selected based on available bandwidth to reach them. The question is why? <<<Nurit: S-PEs are selected also based also on the best route towards the Egress U-PE. Etc.>>> We already traffic engineered the MPLS tunnels across the MPLS network, why should be make this network an order of magnitude more complicated by traffic engineering PWs on top of already traffic engineered tunnels? <<<Nurit: In order to supply the TE requirement of the PWs. Requirements like QoS, TE priority, resiliency, etc. Please see more above>>> I think that TE of PW themselves is not a useful feature. For example, if an MPLS-TE tunnel runs out of available bandwidth, we can simply make it bigger, by re-signaling the RSVP-TE LSP with new parameters. <<<Nurit: This 'path-resizing' is done by a manual operation, and this make the provisioning more complicated. We want to automate the process. We want to put the PW in a tunnel that has sufficient BW, or may preempt other traffic, etc. Between a pair of U-PEs we may have a few MPLS TE tunnels, each with different characteristics. Since a TE PW has requirements that should be satisfied by the tunnels (enough BW, Diffserv TE class, protection, etc.), the S-PEs should be aware of such requirements in order to select an appropriate TE tunnel to the destination when switching/stitching the PW. The basic point if that a PW is actually a service, like an Ethernet service, etc. and the service has requirements for TE. >>> This point applies regardless of what protocol is used to setup the PW: the PW layer itself should NOT be traffic engineered. <<<Nurit: I believe it does have. We traffic engineer a service. Please see above.>>> There are two stages required in traffic engineering an MPLS network: First a constrained shortest path calculation is performed to select a path through the network. This path is calculated based on a database that gives a picture of all available links and resources on each link in the network. <<<Nurit: Correct. A TE tunnel for a PW is like a link. We still want to find the best route/path for the PW/service. This best route is the shortest path the applies the requirements of the PW/service. Requirements like QoS, Diffserv TE class, protection, etc.>>> Second the path is signaled using RSVP-TE with an Explicit Route Object, and a T-Spec object. <<<Nurit: Correct: We may like to enforce the PW to transmit via certain S-PEs. This can be for accounting sake, or for security sake, etc. This S-PEs should be contained in the Explicit Route Object. The T-spec is important as well, to provide the S-PEs the information in order to select the appropriate TE tunnel when switching/stitching the PW>>>. The MS-PW RSVP-TE draft has failed to explain how PW specific information would be propagated in an MPLS network in a manner analogous to the first step above. Using OSPF-TE? Maybe ISIS-TE? Maybe Marking MPLS tunnels for PW use only? <<<Nurit: IGP-TE is used and the LSP hierarchy may be used to advertise the TE tunnel as FA LSPs. This is defined in the draft.>>> I propose that using the PCE architecture would be the only reasonable method to perform PW TE across multiple domain and multiple providers. Another major problem that is yet unresolved is the fact the RSVP-TE signaling does not have the concept of a session. (RSVP-TE refresh reduction is not a session). A session consists of initialization, and a well defined message transport layer. In LDP we have an LDP session setup phase, and a TCP/IP session is used to transport messages numbered in a sequence. The PW is then set up by sending messages that are multiplexed within the TCP/IP transport session - so the messages themselves do not require globally unique addresses. <<<Nurit: A session is an approach. I cannot see the problem in the RSVP-TE approach. IS it a requirement o have session?>>> RSVP, does not have the concept of a session, however independent PW addressing can be achieved by using the the SESSION object, and the SENDER_TEMPLATE. The problem arises when a status message needs to be returned by an intermediate S-PE in the MS-PW. The RSVP protocol is only defined for IPV4 and IPV6, hence we cannot send a message back to say that, for example, TX direction of S-PE 102:10.0.0.1 failed for PW 102:10.0.0.45:401. (In LDP this is done by using the PW status TLV in the LDP status notification). How can this be done in RSVP-TE? Maybe by creating the new address family for PW, and using RSVP notification mechanisms? Another possibility would be to use a RSVP notification mechanism to just transport a message to the T-PE. It is also unclear how the RSVP protocol would be used to set up PWs in a network that has duplicate IP addresses. <<<Nurit: Duplicate IP addresses? How LDP can work in such a case? LDP is based on IGP? How can you establish LDP session between the U-PEs? How end-to-end management (e.g. SNMP) can work inband in such a network? Etc. It seems that only manual configuration can help in such a case. Isn't it one of missions of the control plane to automate the process?>>> This is very common in service providers' internal networks, not used to directly carry public IP traffic. Nodes are generally addressed out of private IP space, and node IP addresses will be commonly duplicated between providers (in this case a status message from 10.0.0.1 would be effectively anonymous, unless some other form of addressing is used). In the LDP MS-PW proposal this is solved by allocating a unique L2 PW address to the nodes acting as S-PE or T-PE. <<<Nurit: If there is a requirement, we can think of something similar to the RSVP-TE. Such an enhancement or definitions can be done also to an IETF draft. An IETF draft is not an RFC. Work is still required on the draft.>>> None of these problems are addressed in draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-03.txt. Also a clear list of changes required to RSVP would need to be included in the draft in order for the WG to judge whether the protocol is implementable and worthwhile. GMPLS resolves some of these problems, however there are 2 major differences I can see: 1) GMPLS is used hop by hop in the PSN. 2) IP addressing of GMPLS nodes is reserved, and not used for IP traffic - other then control traffic. I believe that if there is a need for a GMPLS RSVP PW it should be defined as a flavor of draft-kompella-ccc-02.txt. This is a classical layer collapsing argument: we only need to piggy back the PW information on the RSVP signaled LSP. In this case there is a one to one mapping between PWs and RSVP-TE LSPs. >From a service provider point of view there would be a few advantages to this methodology: 1) this traffic engineering technology is well established 2) only one protocol/session per PW is needed 3) OAM methods are all already well defined. If a GMPLS PW that interfaces seamlessly with a GMPLS network is needed then PWE3 and CCAMP should work on this together. PWE3 has already defined the PW encapsulation, and it was envisioned by myself and by the ADs at the time of the PWE3 WG creation, that other WGs would also use these encapsulation methods with other setup protocols that better fit their application. Luca _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Nurit Sprecher
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? benjamin.niven-jenkins
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? neil.2.harrison
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? neil.2.harrison
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? benjamin.niven-jenkins
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Shahram Davari
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? neil.2.harrison
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Gray, Eric
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Gray, Eric
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Gray, Eric
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Luca Martini
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Nurit Sprecher
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Gray, Eric
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Jixiong Dong
- Re: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Jixiong Dong
- RE: [PWE3] RSVP MS-PW ? HOW? Drake, John E