1. Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01 Greg Bernstein: gregb@grotto-networking.comgregb@grotto-networking.com Diego Caviglia: Diego.Caviglia@marconi.comDiego.Caviglia@marconi.com Richard Rabbat: richard@us.fujitsu.comrichard@us.fujitsu.com Slides prepared with Huub van Helvoort

2. A VCAT example with Ethernet Service Transport Network CE PE Signal adaptation consistence Transport resource selection SNP End-to-end Ethernet Service Network connections supporting Ethernet Service Note: Requires Consistent Adaptation functionality at Ingress and Egress Nodes

3. Virtual Concatenation: VCAT A general inverse multiplexing technique that can be applied to several transport technologies including SONET/SDH, PDH, and OTN Allows a better bandwidth fit of Ethernet client layer to transport e.g.: 7 STS-3c circuits (155 Mbps each) to carry GigE, instead of 1 STS-48 (2.5 Gbps) Not restricted to Ethernet; applies to FC, etc. Currently some support in GMPLS, however several desirable scenarios appear unsupported.

4. Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme: LCAS Without LCAS, the existing service has to be terminated and another one has to be established between the same Ingress Node and Egress Node LCAS enhancement to VCAT to allow the hitless increase and decrease of used bandwidth Allows for fast graceful degradation in the case of component failure, i.e., automatic notification and removal from active use in the group – does not teardown or restore faulty component LSP --. Observations: LCAS does not play any role in establishing the component LSPs, only in whether they are actively used within the VCAT group. Not all VCAT-capable endpoints are LCAS-capable

5. Aim of this Draft Illustrate the use of GMPLS in supporting VCAT/LCAS operation Exhaustive list of component signal configuration scenarios Explain how current routing/signaling mechanisms can be used to support VCAT/LCAS applications When existing mechanisms are insufficient, try to extend current work to cover what’s missing

6. Why not reuse existing sol’s? Can’t we use concatenated labels? Can only work on the same path Is this bundling? Bundling doesn’t allow the service to span multiple component links Can we use association id for VCAT group? Probably

7. Thinking about the solution… Routing Add 2 bits, one for vcat capability, one for lcas capability of a TE link Signaling We need to tell how big the group is (VCAT) or is going to be (LCAS)? May need to know in advance so we don’t set up 60 and choke at #61 We need some VCAT group id, possibly use association id List of extra error codes we thought of:  Be able to refuse the 1 st one  Be able to refuse subsequent ones: no more  Alarm such as signal label mismatch (mapping scheme, e.g. GFP, LAPS) should also be communicated as an error code Inter-domain boundaries May need to terminate association at the boundary and restart a new one

8. Next Steps Comments received from Huub van Helvoort Is this work of interest to the WG? The overall objective is to document and/or standardize the bits & bytes that make VCAT/LCAS possible in a GMPLS environment Suggest to adopt as WG document if there is interest & continue & develop solution Ethernet-specific part to live in different (applicability) id