Presentation on theme: "MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking CCAMP, IETF 64 Kohei Shiomoto,"— Presentation transcript:
MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking CCAMP, IETF 64 Kohei Shiomoto,
2 Discussion hints Background reading draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.txt draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-06.txt draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt Discussion points what are we trying to achieve? what are the models available? do we want to support all of these models?
3 Migration & Interwork What is migration? MPLS to GMPLS migration is the process of evolving MPLS-TE-based control plane to GMPLS-based control plane. What is interworking? Interworking is just a facilitating function for migration, not a final objective of migration. (Migration and interworking are separate goals.) Interworking is an important technical driver for a migration model. (will be discussed later)
4 Migration models Island model Replace or upgrade MPLS island(s) to GMPLS capable. In between, there is translation. GMPLS and MPLS features are not identical, though similar. Need to interwork/complement different features at the border Integrated model Upgrade MPLS device(s) to speak both MPLS and GMPLS. Advanced feature is only via GMPLS- capable nodes. (No translation too) Once all devices become GMPLS-capable, the MPLS protocols may be turned off. Phased model Add GMPLS feature and protocol element into MPLS devices one at a time. No “GMPLS introduction” G1G4 M1G5G2 G3 M2 M3 M4 M5 MPLS GMPLS G1G3 G4G6 G2 G5 Island modelIntegrated model Do we have to support all three models? Any opinion? draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.txt
5 MPLS-GMPLS-MPLS GMPLS are either non- PSC or PSC MPLS-GMPLS interwork cases GMPLS-MPLS and MPLS- GMPLS GMPLS is PSC only. MPLS GMPLS G1G3 G4G6 G2 G5 MPLS GMPLS G1 G3 G4 G6 G2 G5 GMPLS-MPLS-GMPLS GMPLS is PSC only. GMPLS MPLS G1G3 G4G6 G2 G5 GPLS MPLS G1 G3 G4 G6 G2 G5 draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.txt
6 What models are available? To address Issues in MGM (non PSC) case Issues Lack of routing and signaling adjacencies Control plane resource exhaustion TE path computation between MPLS and GMPLS domains Models Peer, Overlay, Augmented draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.txt GMPLS MPLS D-plane Peer Overlay/Augmented Do we have to support all three models? Any opinion? Model Visibility of optical domain Peer Full Overlay None Augmented Partial
7 Protocol interwork issues (1) RSVP Objects (Generalized) Label Request object (new C-Type IF_ID. Suggested Label Object Label Set Object Upstream Label Object Restart Cap object Admin Status object Recovery Label object Notify Request object (2) Bidirectional LSP setup (3) Failure recovery (4) Bundling FA-LSP (5) Resource affinity mapping (6) MPLS/GMPLS LSP Priority Mapping (7) Signaling Protected MPLS LSPs Be selective (is it realistic) or exhaustive (is it feasible) ?... any feedback/input ?
8 What's next step? Framework/Strategy i-d Revise draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork- fmwk-00.txt By merging protocol interworking items etc.(see page 7) in draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls- interworking-01.txt Accepted as WG document? Evaluation/Applicability i-d WG Milestone (CCAMP): February 2006 Solution i-d WG Milestone (CCAMP): February 2006