LMP Behavior Negotiation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Draft-ietf-pim-port-06. port-06 update Changes made in response to second wglc comments and following discussion Many minor editorial issues fixed Changed.
Advertisements

RSVP-TE Extensions for SRLG Configuration of FA
LMP Test Messages Extensions for Evolutive OTN draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-test-01 CCAMP WG, IETF 76 th Hiroshima.
LMP Behavior Negotiation CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-li-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt Dan Li
1IETF57 DNSOP WG IPv6 Router Advertisement based DNS Autoconfiguration Jaehoon Paul Jeong ETRI 14 th.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 MVPN/BGP Support for Customers That Use mLDP RFCs 6513/6514: support Multicast VPN Service for customers that use PIM provide extensive.
Draft-li-l2vpn-ccvpn-arch-00IETF 88 L2VPN1 An Architecture of Central Controlled Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) draft-li-l2vpn-ccvpn-arch-00 Zhenbin.
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format IETF 84 Vancouver 1.
Draft-ni-l3vpn-bgp-ext-sd-co-lsp-00IETF 87 L3VPN1 BGP Extensions for Setup Service-Driven Co-Routed LSP in L3VPN draft-ni-l3vpn-bgp-ext-sd-co-lsp-00 Hui.
Signaling & Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability-03 draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-02.
March 20, 2006IETF65 PANA WG PANA Specification Updates (draft-ietf-pana-pana-11.txt) Yoshihiro Ohba
OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 OTN draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03 CCAMP WG, IETF 84 th Vancouver.
Evaluation of Possible IGP Extensions for WSON CCAMP WG, IETF 70th Vancouver, Canada draft-li-ccamp-wson-igp-eval-00.txt Dan Li Jianhua.
CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-discovery-02.txt LMP extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Fatai Zhang.
Framework for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-05 CCAMP WG, IETF 82 nd Taipei.
SRI International 1 Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF) Richard Ogier September 21, 2002.
RADEXT WG RADIUS Attribute Guidelines Greg Weber March 21 st, 2006 IETF-65, Dallas v1 draft-weber-radius-attr-guidelines-02.txt draft-wolff-radext-ext-attribute-00.txt.
IETF66 DIME WG John Loughney, Hannes Tschofenig and Victor Fajardo 3588-bis: Current Issues.
NEA Working Group IETF meeting July 27, 2011 Jul 27, 2011IETF 81 - NEA Meeting1.
LMP Test Messages Extensions for Evolutive OTN draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-test-01 CCAMP WG, IETF 77 th Anaheim.
Draft-beckhaus-ldp-dod-01IETF 82: 14 November LDP DoD draft-beckhaus-ldp-dod-01.txt Thomas Beckhaus (Deutsche Telekom AG) Bruno Decraene (France.
Draft-ietf-p2psip-base-08 Cullen Jennings Bruce Lowekamp Eric Rescorla Salman Baset Henning Schulzrinne March 25, 2010.
86th IETF, Orlando, March 2013 Flooding Scope PDUs draft-ginsberg-isis-fs-lsp-00.txt Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi.
8 Byte BGP Communities Finding a practical way forward.
1.3 The ZigBee application framework Jae Shin Lee.
Draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt Link Management Protocol (LMP) LMP draft updates…  draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-07.txt  draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-01.txt  draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt.
ANCP Migration Carrier Analysis Thomas Haag; Birgit Witschurke,
BGP extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery in a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN draft-kumaki-pce-bgp-disco-attribute-03.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI R&D Labs,
Ken Grewal Gabriel Montenegro Manav Bhatia
draft-jounay-pwe3-dynamic-pw-update-00.txt IETF 70 PWE3 Working Group
Giovanni Martinelli, Cisco (*) Gabriele Galimberti, Cisco
Update on Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
CCAMP Working Group Status
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
PANA Issues and Resolutions
A Framework for the Control and Measurement of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments
Usage of The RSVP Association Object draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-01
PCEP Extensions For Transporting Traffic Engineering (TE) Data
IETF80, Prague Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) WG
CCAMP WG Meeting IETF 58 - Minneapolis - Nov’03
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Evolving G.709 OTN Control
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Evolving G.709 OTN Control
OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
Sanjay Wadhwa Juniper Networks
Sanjay Wadhwa Juniper Networks
OSPF Extensions for ASON Routing draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt IETF67 - Prague - Mar’07 Dimitri.
LMP Behavior Negotiation
PLR Designation in RSVP-TE FRR
Charles E. Perkins RFC 2002bis Charles E. Perkins
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-01
Generalized Routing ISCD Switching Capability Specific Information draft-ceccarelli-teas-gneralized-scsi-00 Daniele Ceccarelli
ECE 544 Project3 Team member: BIAO LI, BO QU, XIAO ZHANG 1 1.
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-shen-nsis-tunnel-01.txt
Updates to Draft Specification for DTN TCPCLv4
OSPF WG Status IETF 98, Chicago
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-04.txt
A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-04
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
Lijo Thomas Akshay P.M Satish Anamalamudi S.V.R Anand Malati Hegde
Sally Floyd and Eddie Kohler draft-floyd-ccid4-01.txt July 2007
Fred Kuhns Applied Research Laboratory
Update on DHCPv6 On-Demand Mobility Extension draft
draft-zhuang-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-05
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-02
Extended BFD draft-mirmin-bfd-extended
OSPF WG Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3
TRILL Header Extension Improvements
Parag Jain, Samer Salam, Ali Sajassi (Cisco),
E. Bellagamba, Ericsson P. Sköldström, Acreo D. Ward, Juniper
Presentation transcript:

LMP Behavior Negotiation CCAMP WG, IETF 80th, Prague - CZ draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-02.txt Dan Li (danli@huawei.com) D. Ceccarelli (daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com)

After Beijing (79th) Meeting Compare with 01 version: Removed RFC2119 language for Backward Compatibility (Section 3) Explicitly state how the multiple <CONFIG> objects can be used (Section 3) Removed “O” bit, this draft can move forward without any dependency “O” bit will be defined in “draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-test-02.txt”

New C-Type: BEHAVIOR CONFIG Config Message (Msg Type = 1) defined in [RFC4204] Config Message in this ID: <Config Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <CONFIG> [<CONFIG> …] CONFIG Class = 6 o C-Type = 1, HelloConfig, defined in [RFC4204] o C-Type = 2, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, defined in [RFC4209] o C-Type = 3, BEHAVIOR_CONFIG, defined in This I-D

Format of BEHAVIOR_CONFIG Format of BEHAVIOR_CONFIG is changed 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length |B|S|D|C| Reserved | Length: 8 bits --- total length of the objects expressed in multiples of 4 bytes. Flags: B: 1 bit --- [RFC4204] S: 1 bit --- [RFC4207] D: 1 bit --- [RFC4209] C: 1 bit --- [RFC5818] Note: O-bit will be added by draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-test-02.txt. The Reserved field MUST be sent as zero and MUST NOT be ignored on receipt. This allows the detection of supported / unsupported LMP behaviors.

Another Style for BEHAVIOR_CONFIG? RFC 3392 style capabilities advertisement, refer to BGP Capabilities Optional Parameter: +------------------------------+ | Capability Code (1 octet) | | Capability Length (1 octet) | | Capability Value (variable) | Does LMP need to exchange configuration parameters in a generic fashion? Since we just need to make the selection for the LMP behaviors, we think the *compact* format (defined in current draft) is ok.

How Will a Legacy LMP Node Respond? Receiving a Config Message: <Config Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <HelloConfig>|<LMP_WDM_CONFIG> <BEHAVIOR_CONFIG> Reject -- unknown BEHAVIOR_CONFIG object Reject -- multiple <CONFIG> objects Ignore the second <CONFIG> object (behavior config) The LSR receives a ConfigNack message, MUST revert to current practices of configuration or discovery.

Next Steps Do we need to define “B” bit in this draft? Seems it’s redundant because RFC4204 is mandatory behavior for LMP Draft is quiet simple and stable, ready for WG LC? Comments?