Last Modified: 2005-11-08
Done | Post strawman WG goals and charter | |
Done | Identify and document a limited set of candidate solutions for signalling and for measurement. Among candidate control solutions to be considered are the existing GMPLS drafts. | |
Done | Build appropriate design teams | |
Done | Submit WG document defining path setup portions of common control plane protocol | |
Done | Submit WG document defining common measurement plane protocol | |
Done | Submit LMP MIB to IESG | |
Done | Submit protection & restoration documents to IESG | |
Done | Submit ASON signaling requirements doc to IESG | |
Done | Submit GMPLS MIBs to IESG | |
Done | Produce CCAMP WG document for generic tunnel tracing protocol | |
Done | Produce CCAMP WG document for multi-area/AS signaling and routing | |
Done | Submit ASON routing requirements doc to IESG | |
Done | Submit revised charter and milestones to IESG for IESG consideration of more detailed deliverables and determination of usefulness of continuation of WG | |
Oct 2005 | First version WG I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPF | |
Oct 2005 | First version WG I-D for Automatic discovery of MPLS-TE mesh membership | |
Nov 2005 | Cross-WG review of I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPF | |
Nov 2005 | First version WG I-D MPLS to GMPLS migration strategies | |
Done | Submit ASON Routing evaluation I-D for IESG review | |
Dec 2005 | Submit RSVP-TE extensions for inter-domain signaling I-D for IESG review | |
Dec 2005 | Submit Per-domain path computation signaling I-D for IESG review | |
Dec 2005 | First version of WG I-D for ASON Routing solutions | |
Dec 2005 | First version WG I-D Requirements for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks | |
Dec 2005 | First version WG I-D for Evaluation of existing protocols for MLN/MRN | |
Jan 2006 | Submit GMPLS signaling in support of Call Management I-D for IESG review | |
Jan 2006 | Submit I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPF for IESG review | |
Jan 2006 | First version WG I-D for Protocol solutions for MLN/MRN | |
Jan 2006 | First version of WG I-D for OSPF-TE/GMPLS MIB module | |
Jan 2006 | First version WG Informational I-D for Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and protected paths | |
Feb 2006 | Submit GMPLS/ASON lexicography I-D for IESG review | |
Feb 2006 | Submit LSP Stitching I-D for IESG review | |
Feb 2006 | First version WG I-D MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutions | |
Mar 2006 | Submit I-D for Automatic discovery of MPLS-TE mesh membership for IESG review | |
Mar 2006 | First version WG I-D GMPLS OAM Requirements | |
Apr 2006 | Submit GMPLS routing and signaling interoperability advice I-D for IESG review | |
Apr 2006 | First version of WG I-D for additional MIB module to cover RSVP-TE signaling extensions | |
Jun 2006 | Submit Informational I-D for Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and protected paths for IESG review | |
Oct 2006 | Submit MPLS to GMPLS migration strategies I-D for IESG review | |
Nov 2006 | Submit ASON Routing solutions I-D for IESG review | |
Dec 2006 | Submit Requirements for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks I-D for IESG review | |
Jan 2007 | Submit MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutions I-D for IESG review | |
Feb 2007 | Submit Evaluation of existing protocols for MLN/MRN for IESG review | |
Mar 2007 | Submit OSPF-TE/GMPLS MIB module for MIB doctor and IESG review | |
Jun 2007 | Submit GMPLS OAM Requirements I-D for IESG review | |
Aug 2007 | Submit Protocol solutions for MLN/MRN I-D for IESG review | |
Dec 2007 | Submit MIB module for RSVP-TE signaling extensions for MIB doctor and IESG review | |
Dec 2007 | Recharter or close Working Group |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC3471 | PS | Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description |
RFC3472 | PS | Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions |
RFC3473 | PS | Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions |
RFC3609 | I | Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels |
RFC3945 | Standard | Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Architecture |
RFC3946 | Standard | Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control |
RFC4003 | Standard | GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control |
RFC4139 | I | Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) |
RFC4202 | Standard | Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) |
RFC4203 | Standard | OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching |
RFC4204 | Standard | Link Management Protocol (LMP) |
RFC4207 | Standard | Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages |
RFC4208 | Standard | Generalize Multiprotocol Label Switching(GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model |
RFC4209 | Standard | Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems |
Sixty-fourth IETF Vancouver November 6-11, 2005 MONDAY, November 7, 2005 0900-1130 Morning Session I RTG ccamp Common Control and Measurement Plane WG CCAMP Working Group Meeting Report Notes by Deborah and Adrian =========================== ============================ 0. Administrivia (chairs) Slides No comments on agenda ============================ ================================================ 1. WG status, RFCs, drafts, charter (chairs) Slides - Comments have been raised on the list and we need to be sure that we have addressed them either by inclusion of text or by refuting the suggestions. ================================================ ================================== 2. Liaison from ITU-T (Lyndon) Slides - No response yet on our liaison on the lexicography draft. It will be reviewed next week at the ITU-T SG15 Q12/Q14 meeting to handle confusion on definitions. - Specific examples of confusion are listed in our liaison - Note that the lexicography draft does not define, it provides an understanding of GMPLS terms in reference to ASON - Adrian will attend the ITU-T meeting to help resolve the issues - The OIF intends to wait for CCAMP's ASON routing work before proceeding with ENNI OSPF work - The current OIF demo work is being documented as an appendix for history and to benefit future work - We can hope for convergence on this - The ITU-T is working to update/clarify G.7715 etc. to make sure that PCE is covered. ================================== ============================================= 3. RFC 3946 bis (Adrian) Slides - Proposed action - Publish as a working group I-D - Check agreement and respin if needed - Working Group last call this year ============================================= ======================================================= 4. Addressing Draft (Richard) Slides - Multi-vendor testing of much of the material in the document has been performed. More testing is planned No further issues have been found in testing Some LMP testing is planned in 2006 - This might uncover issues with bootstrapping the control plane - Scope of this document Document should report on experience and therefore remove untested features - What about the inclusion of non-addressing issues? - GPID, etc. Opinion that we should constraint this document to addressing which is something that we can complete relatively quickly, and then start new documents as required for other features. - ERO details need review and discussion (see comments on list as a starting point). Draft should give guidance where it is hard to interpret the RFCs. Where options exist this draft should not impose requirements, but can suggest behavior. - Document status was raised again We changed to standards track after advice from ADs after Paris meeting. The support for this depends on the RFC2119 language used and the content of the I-D. Need to agree a status and then review the text and content against that status. - What to do with out of scope items? Need a repository for out of scope items and new issues that are found. ======================================================= ================================================================= 5. Hierarchy bis - Signaled FAs (Kohei) Slides Hierarchy I-D now published as RFC4206 - Use of LMP for discovery on FAs. There seemed to be general agreement that this was not advisable. - Use of TE router ID New draft proposes explicit use of TE Router ID. This reflects a change in general behavior and we must be clear that this is required and backwards compatible. Since the change is for numbered FA LSPs only, this may be acceptable. Further discussion on the list. - Some support was expressed for this work and for potential further extensions such as - how to identify the different target routing instances - how to bundle/advertise LSPs More discussion on the list - Should the scope be restricted to FA LSPs? Opinion was expressed that the I-D should be limited to FA LSPs. That is, there would be no need to signal an identifier of the routing instance in which the LSP sould be advertised as a TE link. It was proposed that the general extensions for hierarchical LSPs should be moved out into the MRN/MLN work. ================================================================= ============================================ 6. ASON Call signaling (Adrian) Slides No changes to this draft during this year, but we now have implementations on-going. - Proposed split of draft into Call Signaling and ASON Applicability was supported, but it was noted that the current draft included a lot of superfluous text that should not be reproduced in either of the resulting documents. - It was also noted that the terminology sections in this document need to be checked against existing material in particular against ITU-T definitions. Since the definition text largely comes from RFC4139 which has already been checked, this is probably safe. - Liaison to the ITU-T The requirements (and the terminology) have already been liaised to the ITU-T when RFC4139 was developed. The applicability document will certainly be liaised to the ITU-T. - Next steps The draft will be split as discussed Work on Call Signaling will happen first. Surpluous text will be deleted. ============================================ =================================================== 7. ASON Routing solution (Dimitri) Slides This draft is a progression from the ASON Routing Requirements and the ASON Routing Evaluation. It is an early version and more work is needed. Objective is limited to the requirements already documented. This work will become a working group draft, but some more effort is needed first. =================================================== ================================================================= 8. Inter-domain issues (Dimitri and Tomohiro) Slides - Tomohiro Slides - Dimitri - Scope? The scope of this work is to interconnect GMPLS routing domains - Existing solutions versus requirements It was noted that BGP already exchanges reachability information between domains. However, before going into solutions we need to set out requirements which include - "TE reachability" not just IP reachability - potentially other aggregated TE information - inter-area and inter-AS The suggestion that this work has already been done in the field was met with the suggestion that documentation is needed. - No intention to invent new techniques if existing techniques meet the requirements and can be documented - Currently we need to work on the problem statement to understand whether the requirements are already met One objective may be to avoid accidental attempts to connect mismatched termination or switching capabilities. - This is a a multi-layer, multi-domain reachability problem. The problem doesn't arise in ASON because there the routing is all within a single layer. - Noted that hierarchical routing can be very problematic if want to preserve all information. Therefore the tradeoff between aggregation and optimality needs examination to decide what is reasonably achievable. ================================================================= ======================================================= 9. MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking (Kohei) Slides - Optical versus Packet Established that this work is relevant to migration only Therefore operation of packet networks over optical networks is not within scope except where the packet network is mgirating from MPLS to GMPLS - Noted that an extreme view of the island model treats each node as an island. This is already covered in section 4.1.1 of the I-D. ======================================================= ============================================== 11. VCAT/LCAS (Richard) Slides Item taken out of agenda order. - Gauging interest - Good show of hands for "who thinks ccamp should work on this?" - About six to ten hands for "who would be willing to work on this?" - Applicability - Clear use is for Ethernet - Also possible use is Fibre Channel - Need for diverse path concatenation? - Original GMPLS work assumed that virtual concatenation eixsted only between LSPs on the same path. Carriers confirmed this limitation. This can be achieved by label concatenation. - Now that carriers have experience, we are being told that diverse routing of VCAT group members is acceptable. - This draft is only needed if we want to support diverse paths ============================================== ====================================================== 10. Lambda labels (Richard) Slides - Scope - GMPLS currently defines a label as having hop-by-hop meaning - This is even the case when the label has globally defined syntax - More discussion is needed to try to pin down and clarify the requirements - It is not clear to many why we need new mechanisms - It is not clear that proposals solve the problem - LMP Discussion about why LMP can't be used to provide a hop-by-hop mapping of label values. - Suggestion was made that this might "overload" LMP - Next steps - try to clarify requirements on the list and in a revised I-D ====================================================== ================================================ 12. MS-SPRing (Adrian for Diego) Slides Out of time Please look at slides and comment on the list ================================================ ================================================================== 13. Management plane / Control plane exchange of LSPs (Dan Li) Slides Out of time Please look at slides and comment on the list ================================================================= ======================================================================= 14. Graceful Shutdown in GMPLS Traffic Engineering Networks (Zafar) Slides Mood of the room - Good consensus that the problem as described in this I-D needs to addressed - Some concern that the proposed solution may not be perfect Next steps - Need to discuss solutions on the list ======================================================================= ================================================================== 15. Control Plane Resiliency Issues (Young Kim) Slides Out of time Please look at slides and comment on the list ================================================================== |