1 / 6

draft -ali-ccamp-xro-lsp-subobject-02.txt

CCAMP - IETF 85 – Atlanta November 2012. draft -ali-ccamp-xro-lsp-subobject-02.txt. Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Ori Gerstel Cisco Systems Matt Hartley Cisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation Rüdiger Kunze Deutsche Telekom AG

jabir
Download Presentation

draft -ali-ccamp-xro-lsp-subobject-02.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CCAMP- IETF 85 – Atlanta November 2012 draft-ali-ccamp-xro-lsp-subobject-02.txt ZafarAli Cisco Systems Clarence FilsfilsCisco Systems OriGerstelCisco Systems Matt HartleyCisco Systems Kenji Kumaki KDDI Corporation RüdigerKunze Deutsche Telekom AG JulienMeuricFrance Telecom Orange George SwallowCisco Systems

  2. Overall Problem Space • Between areas, ASes, across UNIs and NNIs, visibility of TE Database information is limited • The aim is to allow path diversity across such boundaries, while respecting that not information can or will be shared • This draft pertains especially to boundaries where policy limits information flow • E.g. at a UNI where the operator limits visibility into the network NNI TE Tail UNI-C TE Head UNI-N NNI ASBR ASBR UNI-N UNI-C ASBR ASBR UNI-N UNI-C

  3. Route Diversity using Exclude Routes • Not all use-cases are covered with the existing XRO subobjects • Exclusion of the route of an LSP Where the ingress node is denied RRO by policy Which does not involve the node signaling the diverse LSP • LSP diversity is a responsibility of the server layer Permits client layer to broadly express diversity requirements • Simplest use cases • 1:1 protection • Pre-planed IP backbone redundancy requires diverse links in the optical plane

  4. LSP Subobject • New LSP subobjectof Exclude Route (XRO) Object and Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) defined in [RFC4874]. • Carries FEC of the LSP or Tunnel from which diversity is desired • Defines flags: • Exclusion-Flags: SRLG, Node, & Link exclusion. • Attribute Flags: LSP ID ignored (Tunnel Exclusion) Destination node exception Processing node exception Penultimate node exception • Last 3 are oriented toward UNI interface

  5. Comment at last IETF • Suggested that PPRO could be used • Further investigation and offline discussions showed that the PPRO is for a very different purpose and not useable in this situation

  6. Next Steps • Call for workgroup adoption

More Related