IETF 102 (TEAS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Advertisements

Requirement and protocol for WSON and non-WSON interoperability CCAMP WG, IETF 81th, Quebec City, Canada draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wson-interoperability-00.
Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
MPLS additions to RSVP Tunnel identification Tunnel parameter negotiation Routing policy distribution Routing debugging information Scalability improvements.
CS Summer 2003 Lecture 12 FastReRoute (FRR) - Big Picture.
CS Summer 2003 Lecture 9. CS Summer 2003 FILTERSPEC Object FILTERSPEC Object defines filters for selecting a subset of data packets in a session.
draft-kompella-mpls-rmr Kireeti Kompella IETF 91
1 Fabio Mustacchio - IPS-MOME 2005 – Warsaw, March 15th 2005 Overview of RSVP-TE Network Simulator: Design and Implementation D.Adami, C.Callegari, S.Giordano,
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
IETF 68, MPLS WG, Prague P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-01.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal.
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
Protection and Restoration Definitions A major application for MPLS.
Kireeti Kompella draft-kompella-mpls-rmr-01
Draft-torvi-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection-00IETF 84 MPLS: 30 July Ingress Protection for RSVP-TE p2p and p2mp LSPs draft-torvi-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection-00.
1 RSVP-TE Signaling For GMPLS Restoration LSP draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp-03 Author list: Rakesh Gandhi Zafar Ali
Draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-01IETF 90 MPLS1 Proxy MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path(LSP) draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-01 Zhenbin Li, Xinzong Zeng.
Draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-00IETF 87 MPLS1 Proxy MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path(LSP) draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-00 Zhenbin Li, Xinzong Zeng.
Establishing P2MP MPLS TE LSPs draft-raggarwa-mpls-p2mp-te-02.txt Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks.
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-00 Yimin Shen (Juniper Networks) Yuji Kamite (NTT Communication) IETF 83, Paris, France.
Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs draft-kumaki-murai-ccamp-rsvp-te-l3vpn-01.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation Tomoki Murai Furukawa.
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-04 Huaimo Chen, Raveendra Torvi Autumn Liu, Tarek Saad,
IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 1 VCCV Extensions for Multi- Segment Pseudo-Wire draft-hart-pwe3-segmented-pw-vccv-01.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-04.txt Mustapha.
RSVP-TE Extensions to Realize Dynamic Binding of Associated Bidirectional LSP CCAMP/MPLS WG, IETF 79th, Beijing, China draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.
Analysis on Two Methods in Ingress Local Protection.
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-03
Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
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,
Residence Time Measurement draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-02
Zhenbin Li, Li Zhang(Huawei Technologies)
Jean-Philippe Vasseur – Cisco Systems Raymond Zhang - Infonet
Inter domain signaling protocol
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
Author list: Rakesh Gandhi Zafar Ali
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
MPLS LSP Instant Install draft-saad-mpls-lsp-instant-install-00
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudo-Wire Encapsulation draft-raggarwa-pwe3-p2mp-pw-encaps-00.txt R. Aggarwal (Juniper)
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-02
IETF 96 (MPLS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh Kireeti Kompella (presenting)
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MP LSP Ingress/Egress Local Protection
Single-Area OSPF (Open Shortest Path First Protocol)
draft-ietf-mpls-rmr Kireeti Kompella & Luis Contreras
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
PLR Designation in RSVP-TE FRR
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-06 Authors: Mike Taillon.
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in ISIS
Signaling RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs in an Inter-domain Environment draft-ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-01.txt Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems.
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
CHAPTER 8 Network Management
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-shen-nsis-tunnel-01.txt
draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-00
IETF 98 (MPLS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella
LSP Fast-Reroute Using RSVP Detours
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-04.txt
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
Anup K.Talukdar B.R.Badrinath Arup Acharya
Extensions to G/RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs R.Aggarwal, D.Papadimitriou, and S.Yasukawa (Editors)
draft-ietf-mpls-rmr IETF 99 (Prague)
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
WG Document Status Compiled By: Matt Hartley, Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram IETF TEAS Working Group.
IP RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for P2P IP-TE LSP Tunnels Tarek Saad, Juniper Networks Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Juniper.
draft-kompella-spring-rmr
WG Document Status Compiled By: Matt Hartley, Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram IETF TEAS Working Group.
Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Pseudo-Wire Protection
Presentation transcript:

IETF 102 (TEAS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella RSVP-TE EXTENSIONS FOR Resilient MPLS Rings draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-rmr-extension-01 IETF 102 (TEAS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella

Ring LSPs: Basics Each ring node automatically initiates two MP2P ring LSPs. Ring LSP ‘RL1’ starts and ends on R1. The egress for RL1 is R1. Each node can send traffic to R1 either clockwise(CW) or anticlockwise(AC) or both. 17 17 1 17 2 17 9 CW AC 17 8 17 3 17 7 17 4 17 6 17 5 A ring of N nodes has 2N ring LSPs, not N*(N-1)! None of these LSPs are configured!

MP2P Ring LSPs Ring LSPs form a loop. Ingress & Egress are same node for a ring LSPs. A Ring LSP is multipoint to point (MP2P) LSP Each transit node of ring LSP is also an ingress node for the ring LSP. The bandwidth of a ring LSP can change hop-by-hop (since it is MP2P) R0---->R1---->R2---->R3---->R4---->R5---->R6--->R7--->R0 (CW LSP) R0---->R7---->R6---->R5---->R4---->R3---->R2--->R1--->R0 (ACW LSP)

RMR: Ring During Failure Traffic Using RL1 for illustration. Same applies to all LSPs Say link between N3 & N4 fails: LSP failure protection Local repair by failing-over to the counter- rotating counterpart sub-LSP Global repair: simply propagating local-repair upstream (on other direction LSP) up to ring- LSP egress N1 N2 Traffic Traffic CW LSP N10 N3 AC LSP 2 LSPs of ring node N1 N9 N4 Traffic Traffic N8 N5 Traffic Traffic N7 N6 Traffic Traffic

RMR_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object Extensions - Session Object RMR_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object Class = SESSION, RMR_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ring anchor node address | | Ring Flags | Ring Instance ID | | Ring ID | Ring anchor node address: IPv4 address of the anchor node. Each anchor node creates LSP to itself. Ring Flags: 1 = Clockwise 2 = Anti-Clockwise Ring Instance ID: A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION. This ID is useful for graceful ring topology changes. Ring ID: A 32-bit identifier for the ring. This number remains constant throughout the existence of ring.

Sender Template & Filter Spec Object Extensions - Sender Template Object Sender Template & Filter Spec Object 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ring tunnel sender address | | Must be zero | LSP ID | Ring tunnel sender address IPv4 loopback address of the sender . LSP ID A 16-bit identifier used in the SENDER_TEMPLATE. No changes to the format of SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects. Only the semantics of these objects will slightly change. Different sender template & filter spec objects can be inserted by different nodes along the ring.

Ring LSPs: Bandwidth Management Let’s say that the CW & AC anchor LSPs are already established for node 1 – LSP1. (Green arrow LSP) Let’s focus on the CW LSP. Now, node 5 wants to achieve BW increase from 0G to 1G (Blue arrow LSP) Similarly node 6 may want to increase BW (Purple arrow LSP) Now, let’s say, node 5 wants to increase bw again from 1G to 2G 17 10 17 1 17 2 17 9 17 8 17 3 17 7 17 4 17 6 17 5

Ring LSPs: Bandwidth Management 17 10 17 1 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 17 2 17 9 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 17 8 17 3 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 17 7 17 4 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 17 6 17 5 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 ST5 : SenderAddress-5 LSPID-1 ST1 : SenderAddress-1 LSPID-1 ST5 : SenderAddress-5 LSPID-1 ST6 : SenderAddress-6 LSPID-1

Ring LSPs: Bandwidth Management If sufficient BW is not available at some Downstream (say node 9), then ring node 9 will generate PathErr with the corresponding Sender Template Object. When ring node 5 no longer needs the bw reservation, then ring node 5 will originate a new Path message with a new Sender Template Object with 0 bw. Every downstream node will then remove bw allocated on the corresponding link. Note that we will not actually change any label as part of this bw increase/decrease. So, the label remains same as it is signaled initially for the anchor LSP. Only BW accounting changes when these Path messages get signaled.

Next Steps Identify best way to use express links. Need more feedback from the working group.