1. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Requirements for delivering MPLS services over L3VPN draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-02.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI, Editor Raymond Zhang BT

2. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Summary of this draft This draft is to: –Clarify issues for an e2e MPLS TE LSP over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs –Describe the reference model, application scenarios and specific requirements for these LSPs

3. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Reference model Service Provider’s network Customer’s or another SP’s network Customer’s or another SP’s network P-TE LSPs Vrf instances C-TE LSPs CE C C PE PP

4. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Application Scenario(1) The PE should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on local policy. –Preemption priority Voice : priority 0 The P-TE LSP head-end should control the bandwidth of C-TE LSP. DS-TE support for C-TE LSPs and P-TE LSPs Fast protection between CE1 and CE3 CE1 and CE3 may work as a PCC and PEs may work as a PCE. SP’s network CE1 PE CE2 CE3 Customer’s site P P P P SIP proxy server User agent client User agent server Primary LSP Backup LSP Priority 0,bandwidth 1M Priority 0,bandwidth 1G

5. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Application Scenario(2) SP A network CE PE CE SP B network C0 C1 C2 P P P P Priority 0,bandwidth 1G Priority 1,bandwidth 2G Priority 0,bandwidth 100M The PE should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on local policy. –Preemption priority Priority 0 : voice Priority 1 : video and television The P-TE LSP head-end should control the bandwidth of C-TE LSP. Fast Protection between CEs (voice) Load balancing of traffic across primary and secondary LSP to minimize the traffic disruption in case of a link or a PE failure (video and television) DS-TE support for C-TE LSPs and P-TE LSPs CEs may work as a PCC and PEs may work as a PCE. Priority 1,bandwidth 200M Primary LSP Secondary LSP Backup LSP

6. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Major Changes from -01 Added two Application Scenarios in Section 5 –Enterprise case –Service Provider case Added an Application Scenario in Appendix A –RSVP Aggregation over MPLS TE Tunnels

7. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Remaining Issues Any other specific requirements?

8. November 200667th IETF@San Diego Next Actions Need more comments and feedback from WG Work with other WGs? Request WG to accept this I-D as a WG document