MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking

1
MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking

• CCAMP, IETF 64
• Kohei Shiomoto, shiomoto.kohei_at_lab.ntt.co.jp

2
Discussion hints

• Background reading
• draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.
  txt
• draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-06.txt
• draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt
  
• Discussion points
• what are we trying to achieve?
• what are the models available?
• do we want to support all of these models?

3
Migration Interwork

• What is migration?
• MPLS to GMPLS migration is the process of
  evolving MPLS-TE-based control plane to
  GMPLS-based control plane.
• What is interworking?
• Interworking is just a facilitating function for
  migration, not a final objective of migration.
  (Migration and interworking are separate goals.)
• Interworking is an important technical driver for
  a migration model. (will be discussed later)

4
Migration models
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.
txt

• Island model
• Replace or upgrade MPLS island(s) to GMPLS
  capable.
• In between, there is translation.
• GMPLS and MPLS features are not identical, though
  similar.
• Need to interwork/complement different features
  at the border

• Integrated model
• Upgrade MPLS device(s) to speak both MPLS and
  GMPLS.
• Advanced feature is only via GMPLS-capable nodes.
  (No translation too)
• Once all devices become GMPLS-capable, the MPLS
  protocols may be turned off.
• Phased model
• Add GMPLS feature and protocol element into MPLS
  devices one at a time.
• No GMPLS introduction

Island model
Integrated model
M1
G5
G2
M4
M3
G3
G1
G4
M2
M5
Do we have to support all three models? Any
opinion?
5
MPLS-GMPLS interwork cases
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.
txt

• MPLS-GMPLS-MPLS
• GMPLS are either non-PSC or PSC

• GMPLS-MPLS and MPLS-GMPLS
• GMPLS is PSC only.

G1
G3
G1
G3
G2
G2
G5
G5
MPLS
MPLS
GMPLS
GMPLS
G6
G4
G6
G4

• GMPLS-MPLS-GMPLS
• GMPLS is PSC only.

G1
G3
G1
G3
G2
G2
G5
G5
GMPLS
GMPLS
GPLS
MPLS
MPLS
G6
G4
G6
G4
6
What models are available? To address Issues in
MGM (non PSC) case
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.
txt

• Issues
• Lack of routing and signaling adjacencies
• Control plane resource exhaustion
• TE path computation between MPLS and GMPLS
  domains
• Models
• Peer, Overlay, Augmented

Overlay/Augmented
Peer
MPLS
Model Visibility of optical domain
Peer Full
Overlay None
Augmented Partial
D-plane
GMPLS
Do we have to support all three models? Any
opinion?
7
Protocol interwork issues

• (1) RSVP Objects
• (Generalized) Label Request object (new C-Type
• IF_ID.
• Suggested Label Object
• Label Set Object
• Upstream Label Object
• Restart Cap object
• Admin Status object
• Recovery Label object
• Notify Request object

• (2) Bidirectional LSP setup
• (3) Failure recovery
• (4) Bundling FA-LSP
• (5) Resource affinity mapping
• (6) MPLS/GMPLS LSP Priority Mapping
• (7) Signaling Protected MPLS LSPs

Be selective (is it realistic) or exhaustive (is
it feasible) ? ... any feedback/input ?
8
What's next step?

• Framework/Strategy i-d
• Revise draft-shiomoto-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-f
  mwk-00.txt
• By merging protocol interworking items etc.(see
  page 7) in draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork
  ing-01.txt
• Accepted as WG document?
• Evaluation/Applicability i-d
• WG Milestone (CCAMP) February 2006
• Solution i-d
• WG Milestone (CCAMP) February 2006