TOSHIBA CORPORATION 1 Interoperation Among Distinct Types of Label Switched paths (*) Thank for Y.Rekhter (cisco) and P.Doolan (cisco) Katsube Yasuhi r o (Toshiba Corp.) Hiroshi Esaki (Toshiba Corp.) Hiroshi Esaki (Toshiba Corp.) 1. Topology Driven 2. Reservation Driven 3. Flow Driven

2TOSHIBA CORPORATION u Trigger to establish label forwarding –(a) Control Traffic Driven F (a1) Topology Driven using routing information F (a2) Reservation Driven using Reservation Message –(b) Data Traffic Driven (i.e., flow-driven) u Flow Granularity F (1) (*, egress_router) F (2) (*, L3_dst_prefix) F (3) (ingress_router, egress_router) F (4) (ingress_router, L3_dst_prefix/host) F (5) (L3_src_prefix/host, L3_dst?prefix/host) F (6) (L3_src_host, L3_dst_host&protocol&port)

3TOSHIBA CORPORATION Topology Driven Operation u Advantage –Small Number of VCs (especially for ISP router) –Small Cut-thru Establishment Latency –All packets can be cut-thru u Disadvantage –Sharing communication resources F exclusive QoS / resource-allocation  QoS degradation due to mis-behaved nodes –Conventional packet processing at the end of aggregation

4TOSHIBA CORPORATION Topology Driven Operation  Disadvantage (cont’) –Full-mesh VC configuration for the best throughput  N-square VC problem for large scale routing domain without mpt-pt (or mpt-mpt) –Simultaneous Cut-thru Path establishment according to node appearance F new node F recovered node from failure –Allocated Bandwidth would be large

5TOSHIBA CORPORATION Flow Driven Operation u Advantage –Exclusive communication resource allocation F exclusive QoS / resource-allocation  QoS provision even with mis-behaved nodes –Cut-thru packet processing even at edge-nodes –On demand resource allocation => may reduce allocated bandwidth

6TOSHIBA CORPORATION Flow Driven Operation u Disadvantage –Large Number of VCs (especially for ISP) –Cut-thru Establishment Latency => Stand-by Dedicated-VCs –Control overhead –All packets can not be cut-thru –Scalabilty ?

7TOSHIBA CORPORATION Reservation Driven Operation u Advantage –All packets in the session can be cut-thru u Disadvantage –Need of resource reservation protocol (e.g.,RSVP) –Scalability ?

Benefits of Mixed Operation u Contribution by Topology Driven –Reduction of Required VC Numbers –Reduction of Control Overhead u Contribution by Flow Driven –Reduction of Required Total Bandwidth by On- demand bandwidth Allocation –QOS Provision Without Resource Reservation Protocol (e.g., RSVP) –Cut-thru Forwarding for Arbitary Path –Exclusive Resource Allocation

Benefits of Mixed Operation (cnt’) u Contribution by Reservation Driven –Reduce of Required Total Bandwidth by On-demand bandwidth Allocation –Explicit QOS Provision –Cut-thru Forwarding for Arbitary Path –Exclusive Resource Allocation

Configuration of Networks u Corporate Networks –campus network –wide area links u IP Service Providor (ISP) –wide area links (*) Bandwidth Budget: campus networks : not major factor wide area links : large concern

Mixed Operation (case 1) LSRLSR H/R H/R H/R H/R : topology-driven path : flow/reservation driven ( (*) conventional packet processing at end of topology-driven path topology-driven path

Mixed Operation (case 2) LSRLSR H/R H/R H/R H/R : topology-driven path : flow/reservation driven ( (*) Topology-driven path is used for a tunnel (e.g., VP for ATM) (e.g., VP for ATM)

Mixed Operation (case 3) LSRLSR H/R H/R H/R H/R : topology-driven path : flow/reservation driven ( (*) on-demand path establishment for flow/reservation driven path flow/reservation driven path

Conclusion Supporting three operational modes, - Topology Driven - Reservation Driven - Data Driven (flow driven) * CSR will be operated in WIDE project (LAN&WAN) project (LAN&WAN) => will report at Munich IETF