1. Constraint-based LSP Setup using LDP Bilel Jamoussi jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com

2. 1 NANOG 15 Agenda Overview: MPLS Values Traffic Engineering Requirements Constraint-based LSP setup using LDP —CRLSP Setup —Progress in IETF: Consensus —Progress in IETF: Running Code Issues with RSVP Extensions Questions to ISPs

3. 2 NANOG 15 Overview: MPLS Values Traffic Engineering IP-VPN L2/L3 Integration

4. 3 NANOG 15 Traffic Engineering “Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS”, D. Awduche, et al: —Strict & Loose ER —Specification of QoS —Specification of Traffic Parameters —Route Pinning —Preemption —Failure Recovery Recently, “MPLS-OMP”, C. Villamizar

5. 4 NANOG 15 Constraint-based LSP Setup using LDP Uses LDP Messages & TLVs —LDP runs on a reliable transport (TCP) Does NOT require hop-by-hop Introduces new TLVs to signal ER, and other “Constraints” —QoS, —Traffic Parameters, —Preemption, —Route Pinning TLVs for Error handling & diagnostics

6. 5 NANOG 15 CRLSP Setup IN LER 1 LSR 2 LSR 3 LSR Out LER 1. Label Request 2. Label Mapping Notification Release / Withdraw Downstream on demand ordered label distribution mode

7. 6 NANOG 15 Current CRLDP QoS Support Three Service Class —Best Effort —Throughput Sensitive —Delay Sensitive Traffic Parameters —Peak Data Rate —Committed Data Rate —Committed Burst Tolerance

8. 7 NANOG 15 Progress in IETF: Consensus Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP 14 vendors & ISPs collaborated on CRLDP Accepted through MPLS WG Consensus CRLDP is included by reference in the base LDP Specification LDP Spec is going thorough last call this month

9. 8 NANOG 15 Progress in IETF: Running Code Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP Demonstrated interoperability among 3 Vendors’ implementations in November ‘98 CRLDP is simple, stable, robust, and easily extendible Implementations are being tested

10. 9 NANOG 15 Issues with RSVP Extensions for MPLS Soft state refresh overhead is problematic for MPLS scalability Latency & reliability: problematic for robustness Fundamental changes to the RSVP protocol are proposed —RSVP WG expressed resistance to extensions in Orlando IETF —Discussion has not yet started on RSVP mailing list

11. 10 NANOG 15 Questions to ISPs Is MPLS viewed as mainly an “Intra- Provider” solution in the short-term? —If so, is QoS is a requirement? Is MPLS a viable “Inter-Provider” solution? Will ISPs offer MPLS as a service? Is Loose Explicit Routing a requirement?