Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet Control with GMPLS draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt Wataru Imajuku, Muneyoshi Suzuki, and Kazuhiro Matsuda NTT Kenichi Ogaki and Tomohiro Otani KDDI R&D Labs. Nabil Bitar Verizon 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Scope of ID Clarify service provider requirements for basic B-VLAN control over IEEE802.1Qay networks Scope of IEEE802.1Qay is Traffic Engineering over IEEE802.1ah (B-VLAN) based Ethernet This ID does not exclude S/C-VLAN control over IEEE802.1ad or .1Q networks, because IEEE802.1ah networks can include IEEE802.1ad based Ethernet Switches as Backbone Core Bridges (BCBs) IEEE802.1Qay like implementation is possible even for these IEEE802.1ad based Ethernet Switches IEEE802.1ah based Ethernet Switch Equipment is expected to support S-tagged IF/C-tagged IF as well as I-tagged IF. 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Reference Models (1) Single layer Eth-Label Switched Network -------- | LSR3 |__ P-based IF -------- ----- _____|(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF P-based IF | LSR1 |____|LSR2 | | |__ I-tagged IF S-tagged IF |(IB-BEB)| |(BCB)| -------- I-tagged IF | | | |_____ -------- -------- ----- | LSR4 | | (B-BEB)| | |__ I-tagged IF | GMPLS Eth-LSP | | (BVID/BMAC) | |<---------------| 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Requirements (1) Control plane architecture and functionalities Support for in-band control plane channel Support for automatic neighbor discovery mechanism Assume hybrid operation with legacy Ethernet Ethernet Label Switched Path (Eth-LSP) control Prevention of loops Service control Support for control mechanisms of service type at egress port OA&M Should capitalize on existing OA&M functionalities Such as IEEE802.3ag/ITU-T Y.1731 Link Aggregation Assume Eth-LSP control over Bandwidth Flexible Links, i.e., Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Links Support for priority control of Eth-LSPs Support for re-routing mechanism following change of “Link Bandwidth” Inter-domain Support for inter-domain Eth-LSP traversing over various kinds of demarcation points (Facing I-tagged, S-tagged, or C-tagged interfaces). 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Reference Models (2) Multiple layer Eth-Label Switched Network -------- ------ -------- P-based IF __| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR3 |__ P-based IF S-tagged IF __|(IB-BEB)| | (BCB)| |(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF I-tagged IF __| | | | | |__ I-tagged IF | | ||LAG LAG|| ......................|...........|..||..........||................... | | || || ---+---- ------ ------ | LSR A |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C | | (LSC) | |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) | -------- ------ ------ | GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)| |<------------------------>| | O-LSP | | O-LSP | |<--------->| |<-------->| May overlay routing, peer, or augmented model on inter-working architecture. 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Requirements (2) Support for dynamic formation of Link Aggregation Group Layer 2 GMPLS and Layer 1 GMPLS inter-working Similar requirements to MPLS-GMPLS inter-work, authored by Kenji et al. End-to-end signaling of Eth-LSPs Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs Selective advertisement of FA into L2 domain Etc. Scalability Number of service ports Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs (Need control of mapping at egress node). 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Current Status and Issues Discussion with other service providers British Telecom FT Group Large gap among service providers Hybrid operation with legacy Ethernet LAG related requirements Multi-layer related requirements Not addressed P2MP requirements At this stage, only one service provider has intention to require P2MP GMPLS extension P&R requirements Security requirements 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007

Next Step Bolster and clarify more requirements Incorporate feedback from other service providers Establish common requirements and eliminate ambiguity Establish requirements that consider the reality and feasibility of possible solutions Possible adoption as a working group document after the next meeting. Suggestions welcomed 70th IETF Vancouver Dec. 2007