Routing Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching Constraint
8
67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Routing Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching Constraint Wataru Imajuku: [email protected] Yoshiaki Sone: [email protected] Itaru Nishioka: [email protected] draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-switching-constraint-01.tx
description
Routing Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching Constraint. draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-switching-constraint-01.txt. Wataru Imajuku: [email protected] Yoshiaki Sone: [email protected] Itaru Nishioka: [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Routing Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching Constraint
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Routing Extensions to Support Network
Elements with Switching Constraint
Wataru Imajuku: [email protected]
Yoshiaki Sone: [email protected]
Itaru Nishioka: [email protected]
draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-switching-constraint-01.txt
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Objective of This Draftand Related Studies
• Objective of This Draft– Provides routing scheme of Lambda LSPs in the networks
specifically having constraint in TE-Link Selectivity
• Related Documents– RFC4054
• Discusses Signaling Impairment in transparent optical networks
– draft-ashwood-ccamp-gmpls-constraint-reqts-0x.txt (Expired)• Proposes to advertise abstract link information of the network
having optical constraint
– draft-shiba-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt • Proposed bit-map advertisement of status of wavelength label
– draft-rabbat-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-00.txt • Signaling extensions to directly assign Wavelength of Lambda LSPs
in non or limited wavelength convertible networks • Handles constraint in Label Selectivity
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
New Problem Statementsin This Draft
• Constraint in TE Link Selectivity – Sharp market rise of
reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs)– ROADM has constraint in TE-Link Selectivity– ROADM has two groups of tributary ports,
connectable only for East or West NNI
• GMPLS routers or other GMPLS capable nodes should
– take into account the constraint of TE Link Selectivity.
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
RxTx
Add Switches
Drop Switches
Drop Switches
TE Link Selectivity in ROADMs
RxTx
Add Switches
West Bound Tributary Port Group
West Bound Bi-Directional LSP
East Bound Bi-Directional LSP
NNI Link(West)
East Bound Tributary Port Group
NNI Link(East)
ROADM
RxTx RxTx
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Example of ROADM Ring• LSPs in ROADM Rings
– LSPs from West Tributary Ports are terminated at East Tributary Ports – This is also true for the case of vice versa.
• Label Allocation– Approach 1 Routing Solve Label Allocation (Bit-map advertisement)
(draft-shiba-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt)– Approach 2 Signaling Solve Label Allocation (Label Set + Null Upstream)
IP Router #B
NNI-W
TE-Link of Tributary-W
IP Router #BTE-Link of Tributary-ENNI-E
IP Router #A IP Router #A
NNI-E
TE-Link of Tributary-E
TE-Link of Tributary-W
NNI-W
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Necessity of Extension
• In addition to bit-map information of wavelength status, information of TE-Link Selectivity is necessary
• Indispensable in multi-ring, ROADM/OXC hybrid networks
Ingress Egress
Tributary-W
Tributary-E
Tributary-W
OXCROADM #X
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Possible GMPLS Routing Extensions
• Advertise– Selectable and/or Un-selectable TE-Link
lists from advertised TE-Link– Sub-TLV Type TBD– Length: variable– Name: Selectable/Un-Selectable Link
Local Identifier
67th IETF San Diego November 2006
Next Action• Receiving feed back from several persons, now authors feel
necessity of an analysis draft with the different view of RFC4054.
– Model network architecture having constraint in wavelength selectivity
and/or TE-Link selectivity – Analyze signaling procedure to establish LSPs in such networks – Analyze the minimum set of routing and signaling extensions
• Thanks Akira Nagata and Akira Chugo (Fujitsu) for giving us valuable feed back.
