Last Modified: 2003-09-30
The Internet Traffic Engineering Working Group defines, develops, specifies, and recommends principles, techniques, and mechanisms for traffic engineering in the internet. The working group also serves as a general forum for discussing improvements to IETF protocols to advance the traffic engineering function.
The primary focus of the tewg is the measurement and control aspects of intra-domain internet traffic engineering. This includes provisioning, measurement and control of intra-domain routing, and measurement and control aspects of intra-domain network resource allocation. Techniques already in use or in advanced development for traffic engineering include ATM and Frame Relay overlay models, MPLS based approaches, constraint-based routing, and traffic engineering methodologies in Diffserv environments. The tewg describes and characterizes these and other techniques, documents how they fit together, and identifies scenarios in which they are useful.
The working group may also consider the problems of traffic engineering across autonomous systems boundaries.
The tewg interacts with the common control and measurement plane working group to abstract and define those parameters, measurements, and controls that traffic engineering needs in order to engineer the network.
The tewg also interacts with other groups whose scopes intersect, e.g. mpls, is-is, ospf, diffserv, ippm, rap, rtfm, policy, rmonmib, disman, etc.
The work items to be undertaken by TE WG encompass the following categories:
- BCP documents on ISP uses, requirements, desires (TEBCPs)
- Operational TE MIB (TEMIB)
- Document additional measurements needed for TE (TEM)
- TE interoperability & implementation informational notes (TEIMP)
- Traffic Engineering Applicability Statement (TEAPP)
For the time being, it also is covering the area of verification that diffserv is achievable in traffic engineered SP networks. This will entail verification and review of the Diffserv requirements in the the WG Framework document and initial specification of how these requirements can be met through use and potentially expansion of existing protocols.
| Done | Solicit TEBCP drafts concerning requirements, approaches, lessons learned from use (or non use) of TE techniques in operational provider environments. | |
| Done | Review and comment on operational TEMIB | |
| Done | TEBCPs submitted for WG comment | |
| Done | Comments to TEBCP authors for clarifications | |
| Done | First draft of TEAPP | |
| Done | First draft of TEM | |
| Done | TE Framework Draft to AD/IESG for review. | |
| Done | Drafts available for E-LSP and L-LSP Diffserv TE | |
| Done | Another update of operational TEMIB draft | |
| Done | All comments back on TE Diffserv requirements | |
| Done | Submit revised TEBCPs and REAPP to AD/IESG for review | |
| Oct 01 | Progress operational TE MIB to AD review | |
| Oct 01 | Submit TEM draft for AD review | |
| Nov 01 | Any necessary protocol extensions for Diffserv TE sent to protocol relevant WGs for review. | |
| Dec 01 | Recharter | |
| Jan 02 | Progress Diffserv TE E-LSP and L-LSP Diffserv TE drafts together to AD/IESG for review |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC3272 | I | Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering |
| RFC3346 | I | Applicability Statement for Traffic Engineering with MPLS |
| RFC3386 | I | Network Hierarchy and Multilayer Survivability |
| RFC3564 | I | Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering |
Internet Traffic Engineering WG (tewg) Thursday, November 13 at 0900-1130 ==================================== CHAIRS: Ed Kern <ejk@tech.org> Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com> AGENDA: 0900-0910 Agenda Chairs Document Status Update 0910-0940 Diffserv TE draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-01.txt draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-02.txt Proto, RDM, MAM, MAR Francois Model Comparison Waisum 0940-1000 TE Measurement Waisum draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt 1000-1030 Inter-area / Inter-AS Raymond / Jim draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-01.txt draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-00.txt 1030-1045 Preemption Analysis Jaudelice draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-02.txt 1045-1055 Mib Update Kireeti draft-ietf-tewg-mib-07.txt 1055-1130 WG status and future Chairs ==================================== Minutes ==================================== 0910-0940 Diffserv TE Proto, RDM, MAM, MAR Francois In Vienna, an issue was raised that there may be a problem with relationship between shared mesh restoration and DS-TE BC models. Investigation conclusion that these can work together provided Shared Mesh Restoration operates independently within each CT. This was explained on list. Drafts have been updated before WG Last Call to reflect this. A second issue was raised in draft-sivabalan (on DSTE over TE Link Bundles) which could be generalised into the question of how to generically specify DS-TE operations over any MPLS TE extensions (eg TE link Bundle, FA-LSP,...). -proto draft has been updated before WG Last Call to reflect this (in particular new section 7 on this topic). Model Comparison Waisum Wai Sum: All comments from the previous meeting and on the list have now been incorporated. As agreed in the previous two meetings, this draft is to progress as an independent submission to the RFC Editor, with TEWG review. Francois: I think this is a useful document and support its going forward. Wai Sum: I would like to thank both Francois and his colleague Anna Charny at Cisco whom I worked with extensively offline. I think the document now reflects a fair comparison. 0940-1000 TE Measurement Waisum Revision based on AD feedback completed. Main body of text shortened, with ancilliary information moved to annexes. Clearly identified requirements: + for network dimensioning, mechanisms to collect node-pair based traffic data + for service assurance, higher order stastics required + present representative traffic detail at reasonable sample volumes + be able to manage large volumes of data QA Jim: Question as to what effect this draft can have, feel that we have mixed our mark. Raymond: These requirements are quite critically needed by SPs entering this space. Jerry: The first question is whether we are dropping the TEM milestone. If we are not, the next question is why specifically <draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt> doesn't meet the milestone. There are specific requirements in the draft that will lead to critically needed protocol extensions and/or MIB extensions. If these requirements are not valid or already fulfilled somewhere, Jim and/or Bert need to say why, where, and how. There was an extensive discussion of the list back in April-May. Many people representing several service providers have read the draft and commented extensively on the list back in the April-May timeframe, this discussion is available in the list archive. The only negative comments in the entire discussion were Bert's. The TEM milestone should be met, the draft meets the need, and should progress. Jim: We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For feedback, see my comments to revision 5 which were not addressed. As chair, I have not seen much support on the lists. Who has read recent version (show of hands indicates not many), any version (not many). Think its best to not progress this and just fail to deliver on this WG objective. 1000-1030 Inter-area / Inter-AS Raymond / Jim draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-01.txt draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-00.txt Raymond - Inter-as now includes AS-object. Stressed that requirements are only for IP layer networks now. Once -02 posted, should be ready for WG last call. Adrian - CCAMP should understand that these requirements are coming and have a chance to review. Adrian to send notice to ccamp. Jim - Will remove inter-as from interarea draft, should this be a WG item? JP - No, it currently is pretty light and has no obvious input or support by providers. Kireeti - CCAMP is working on solution, and likely there will be 1 solution to address both of these, so it would be good to get both requirements delivered together. Adrian - is there functional similarities between inter-as and interarea? Jim - I believe so. Raymond - Application scenarios and some functional requirements are different 1030-1045 Preemption Analysis Jaudelice draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-02.txt Feedback from floor was that it would be interesting to see this under variety of network loading. 1045-1055 Mib Update Kireeti draft-ietf-tewg-mib-07.txt Looks ready to go now, and will stay within IESG. Jim: SO what about Diff Serv TE? Kireeti: In a sense, this mib can be used, however you will not be able to read back information like mapping of TE-Class to P and CT. Jim: One thought is that Diff Serv TE MIB work could be done as part of MPLS MIB work in mpls WG. Bert: Has to revisit where these mibs are before they take that on. 1055-1130 WG status and future Chairs See presentation, but sense from the room was that it was right time to close the WG (after interarea and inter-as reqs done). Should anything be needed for TE in the future, a BOF could be used to gauge the need and scope |