1. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Requirement for Inter-Domain LSP Recovery Wataru Imajuku: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jpimajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp Tomohiro Otani:otani@kddilabs.jpotani@kddilabs.jp Yoshiaki Sone :sone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jpsone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp Yasunori Sameshima: sameshima.yasunori@lab.ntt.co.jpsameshima.yasunori@lab.ntt.co.jp draft-imajuku-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-req-01.txt

2. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Objective of This Draft and Comparison with Related Studies Objective: –Clarify requirements for inter-domain TE LSP recovery, specifically non-E2E recovery scheme –For this version focuses on signaling mechanism Status of Related Drafts: –draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-0x.txt Define domain Define LSP Architecture –Contiguous LSP/Stitched LSP/Nested LSP –draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-01.txt Handles the issue of WG Charter, i.e. inter-domain E2E recovery Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and protected paths

3. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Summary of Requirements Assumption: inter-domain TE LSPs traverse various domains with contiguous and hierarchical (stitched or nested) LSP architecture. Protection Object for inter-domain TE LSPs –Segment Recovery Flags: used in domains with contiguous LSP architecture –Link Type Flags: used in domains with hierarchical LSP architecture –Must Support three recovery modes listed below. Per-Domain Recovery: –Main Problem: How to assign Protection Class, when the ingress does not know LSP architecture in each domain. –Requirements: New bit, indicating whether both Seg. Recov. Flags and Link Type Flag be considered or not in each domain. Domain border link failure recovery: –Requirements: Support for SNCP within bundled TE-Link. Domain border node failure recovery: –Requirements: Extension of new bit to clarify whether “in-place” or not recovery LSP for ASBR node failure

4. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Next Action Two Questions: –At this moment, authors and contributors are considering this draft should be separate from “ draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain- recovery-analysis-01.txt. " Because Handling non-WG charter issue Evaluation phase, not urgent requirements from market place at this moment except GMPLS support of SNCP. But authors believe all of studies this draft covered will be essential in the future without fail. –Propose SNCP solution draft in Next CCAMP WG Provides Design Free Approach for Network Operators against Domain-Border Link Failure Applicable to GMPLS Controlled UNI shared protection which we had a correspondence from OIF. Of Interest ? Is that OK ?