Requirement for InterDomain LSP Recovery

1
Requirement for Inter-Domain LSP Recovery
draft-imajuku-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-req-01.t
xt

• Wataru Imajuku imajuku.wataru_at_lab.ntt.co.jp
• Tomohiro Otani otani_at_kddilabs.jp
• Yoshiaki Sone sone.yoshiaki_at_lab.ntt.co.jp
• Yasunori Sameshima sameshima.yasunori_at_lab.ntt.co.
  jp

2
Objective of This Draft and Comparison with
Related Studies

• Objective
• Clarify requirements for inter-domain TE LSP
  recovery, specifically non-E2E recovery scheme
• For this version
• focuses on signaling mechanism
• Status of Related Drafts
• draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-0x.txt
• Define domain
• Define LSP Architecture
• Contiguous LSP/Stitched LSP/Nested LSP
• draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-
  01.txt
• Handles the issue of WG Charter, i.e.
  inter-domain E2E recovery
• Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and
  protected paths

3
Summary of Requirements

• Assumption inter-domain TE LSPs traverse various
  domains with
• contiguous and hierarchical (stitched or
  nested) LSP architecture.
• Protection Object for inter-domain TE LSPs
• Segment Recovery Flags used in domains with
  contiguous LSP architecture
• Link Type Flags used in domains with
  hierarchical LSP architecture
• Must Support three recovery modes listed below.
• Per-Domain Recovery
• Main Problem How to assign Protection Class,
  when the ingress does not know LSP architecture
  in each domain.
• Requirements New bit, indicating whether both
  Seg. Recov. Flags and Link Type Flag be
  considered or not in each domain.
• Domain border link failure recovery
• Requirements Support for SNCP within bundled
  TE-Link.
• Domain border node failure recovery
• Requirements Extension of new bit to clarify
  whether in-place or not recovery LSP for ASBR
  node failure

4
Next Action

• Two Questions
• At this moment, authors and contributors are
  considering this draft should be separate from
  draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis
  -01.txt."
• Because
• Handling non-WG charter issue
• Evaluation phase, not urgent requirements from
  market place at this moment except GMPLS support
  of SNCP.
• But authors believe all of studies this draft
  covered will be essential in the future without
  fail.
• Propose SNCP solution draft in Next CCAMP WG
• Provides Design Free Approach for Network
  Operators
• against Domain-Border Link Failure
• Applicable to GMPLS Controlled UNI shared
  protection which we had a correspondence from
  OIF.
• Of Interest ? Is that OK ?