T-MPLS Update IETF71 March 2008 Stewart Bryant

ITU SG13 Plenary Seoul The Plenary endorsed the proposal to form the JWT on T- MPLS. This ITU SG (specifically Q5) was tasked by SG15 with designing the T-MPLS OAM. Two documents were planned for final comment resolution and approval for publication at this meeting: –Y.1372/G.8113 OAM Requirements –Y.1373/G.8114 OAM Protocol Specification The IAB ad-hoc group on T-MPLS had noted 61 issues with these documents and liaised these to Q5/13:

Q5/13 Seoul The meeting was attended by 3 IETF ADs, one IAB member + IETF/ITU MPLS Liaison (plus others from the IAB ah-hoc committee on T-MPLS) There was extensive discussion on G.8113 (requirements), there was no technical discussion on G.8114 (OAM protocol).

Y.1372/G.8113 Through considerable work at this meeting, Y.172/G.8113 was amended to become an implementation neutral document that described MPLS/PWE3 OAM requirements for transport applications. It has now been published as a informational ITU supplement. Y Suppl.4: ITU-T Y.1300 series - Supplement on transport requirements for T-MPLS OAM and considerations for the application of IETF MPLS technology An ITU supplement is a non-normative publication. Y Suppl.4 contains useful information on how to enhance the OAM for IETF MPLS and PWE3.

Y.1373/G.8114 There was no technical work on this document and so the comments raised by the IAB ad-hoc group and other reviewers were not studied. Q5/13 recommended that Y.1373/G.8114 be withdrawn from the AAP process and the publication process hence be stopped. This recommendation was accepted by the SG13 Plenary.

ITU SG15 Plenary Geneva Considerable background work had been undertaken on the design of the JWT (more detail later) prior to this meeting. The Plenary approved the proposed structure and terms of reference for the JWT. There were 6 T-MPLS documents that were planned to advance at this Plenary. All T-MPLS related technical work was suspended pending the recommendation of the JWT, and no documents were advanced. Some limited work was undertaken to assess the implications of Option1(use IETF Standard Process) / Option2(Brand New ITU Technology). Both options require work by ITU-T.

JWT The JWT’s task is to recommend to ITU-T management whether they should choose Option1 or Option2. JWT will do this by the end of April. JWT will consist of a small number of experts from the ITU and from the IETF. JWT will be jointly chaired by David Ward (IETF) and Malcolm Betts (ITU-T) JWT will base its decision on the technical studies provided by two larger support groups –IETF MPLS Interoperability Design Team –ITU-T ad hoc Group The IAB ad-hoc Group on T-MPLS has now completed its task and the group has been concluded with thanks.

IETF MPLS Interoperability Design Team This group will: –Perform technical analysis to determine what ITU and/or IETF documents/technology needs modification/extension –Evaluate if these changes to MPLS are feasible. –Advise JWT of the deliberations IETF MPLS Interop DT is chaired by Loa Andersson and consists of approx 25 people each with assigned tasks to be completed in time for the April deadline.

Work Areas The technical areas to be studied by the IETF design team are: –Forwarding-Plane –OAM –Control-Plane –Management –Network survivability

ITU-T ad-hoc Group This Group will –Investigate the technical information needed to decide between Option 1 and Option 2 –Investigate the implications for the T-MPLS work in the ITU-T on the two options –Advise the JWT on its deliberations The Group is jointly chaired by Malcolm Betts and David Ward.

JWT The JWT will compile the results from the two support groups. Will make a recommendation to ITU-T Management on whether to choose Option1 or Option2. This is due at the end of April.

IETF Work Regardless of the Option1/2 decision –Y Suppl.4 contains useful information on how to enhance the OAM for IETF MPLS and PWE3 and is likely to form the basis for a IETF draft on this subject. This is an agenda item in MPLS WG at this meeting. –There is confusion over the definition/status of the MPLS Exp bits and a draft will be written clarifying their status and definition.

Questions?