Last Modified: 2003-01-20
The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining a common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for ISP and SP core tunneling technologies.
CCAMP WG tasks include:
- Define signalling protocols and measurement protocols such that they support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies (e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE) using input from technology-specific working groups such as MPLS, IPO, etc.
- Define signalling and measurement protocols that are independent of each other. This allows applications other than the signalling protocol to use the measurement protocol; it also allows the signalling protocol to use knowledge obtained by means other than the measurement protocol.
- Develop and define a set of protocol-independent metrics and parameters for describing links and paths that can be carried in protocols. These will be developed in conjunction with requests and requirements from other WGs (e.g., TEWG, PPVPN, etc.) to insure overall usefulness.
- Abstract link and path properties needed for link and path protection. Define signalling mechanisms for path protection, diverse routing and fast path restoration. Ensure that multi-layer path protection and restoration functions are achievable using the defined signalling and measurement protocols, either separately or in combination.
- Define how the properties of network resources gathered by the measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS.
- Define the relationship between layer 3 routing protocols and the common signalling protocol for establishing and maintaining paths.
- Using input from the TE working group, ensure that the signalling and measurement protocols provide both the information and the control functions adequate to support the traffic provisioning and engineering operations of service providers.
In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the following other WGs and constituencies: TEWG, PPVPN, IPO, MPLS, IPORPR, ISIS, OSPF, and GSMP.
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 | |
JAN 03 | Submit revised charter and milestones to IESG for IESG consideration of more detailed deliverables and determination of usefulness of continuation of WG |
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 |
IETF 56 - CCAMP Kireeti: WG status ------------------ Short overview on status of WG documents as listed on web page. Questions: - framework for sonet/sdh control draft ready for LC? -> unclear - LMP MIB to Last Call? Bert asked for checkup Authors will provide new version and then last call on mailing list - non-standard sonet/sdh extensions? -> no interest in room Bert Wijnen: There is still no document describing what exactly is signaled. If that is not provided, this draft should go to wastebin. **no referenced document** Wesam Alanqar: ITU liaison report --------------------------------- ITU-T SG15 update to ccamp. This presentation has also been sent to the mailing list. 3 liaison statements exist: ason routing, discovery, restoration/re-routing. IETF routing experts are invited to come to next ITU meeting. Dimitri Papadimitriou: Ext. in support of end-to-end GMPLS-based recovery ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00 After 1 year of work: terminology starts to be widely adopted, analysis i-d still too largely scoped. Still needs to be covered: bulk lsp recovery, reversion (switch back) Next steps: next report April 03, func spec ready for LC Functional spec to be ready for LC *in April'03* protocol spec expected to be ready in July 03 Should the terminology doc become PS? - AD will check whether it should be informational or PS Peter Czezowski: recovery requirements, fault notification protocol and LMP ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Presenting 3 drafts and changes to them: - draft-czezowski-optical-recovery-reqs-01.txt - draft-rabbat-fault-notification-protocol-02.txt - draft-soumiya-lmp-fault-notification-ext-00.txt The first 2 drafts believed to be ready. There is running code for the third draft, but is there any interest? Comments are requested from mailing list. George: Changing pt-to-pt protocol to a flooding protocol is more than just adding a message. It results in a different implementation model for LMP. Kireeti: Don't start by modifying LMP, first look into problem and requirements. Need mailing list discussion whether LMP is right. Alex: It took several net meltdowns to learn how to do flooding right. Dimitri: draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03 ------------------------------------------ Changes: modified J0/J1/J2-16 string to fit within 80 bits, added layer adjacency discovery Next steps: believes all technical issues raised on the mailing list solved, accept as wg doc? Is this a worthwhile LMP extension (apart from questions about format details)? Kireeti: needs discussion on list Jonathan Sadler: mechanism worthwhile, encoding still has problems Dimitri: suggest to create document with common bootstrap mechanism, then sonet/sdh specific doc, where sonet/sdh encoding specifics would be specified Jonathan Lang: is feature desired by community? find out before splitting docs and put more work in it Question to room: ~7 think it's useful, nobody against -> take to list George: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-01 ----------------------------------------- Question to room: "ready for WG LC?": ~20 yes, 0 no -> check consensus on list -> start WG last call after meeting Dimitri: technology specific routing extensions to GMPLS routing ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-{ospf,isis} Changes: discussion concerning bandwidth encoding, section on scalability and backward compatibility consideration. Falls within Sonet/SDH basket. Some assertions have been made on list, addressed one-by-one in the presentation. Jonathan Sadler: need discussion on list instead of rhetorical questions here A layering discussion ensued. Kireeti: need layer relationship document (refering to the mrn i-d) Poll of the room: ~15 think it's a useful idea, ~5 against making it wg doc Kireeti: reasonable support, take to list Adrian Farrel: GMPLS MIBs ------------------------- 3 drafts became WG drafts in June 02, nothing happened since. Waiting for MPLS MIBS to go to LC before republishing GMPLS MIBs. Plan: wait for MPLS MIBs republication and LC quick editorial respin to bring in line (~4 weeks after MPLS MIBs) content additions, republish before Vienna chairs would like LC in August (but need WG feedback) Adrian: draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-01 ------------------------------------------------ Why in gmpls? think is ccamp charter item, increasing interest (inter-AS/area), is mpls extension but is generalized and should be part of GMPLS Why needed? needed where path computation is not only in one place Changes: identification of new work items Actions: got useful feedback solicit input from providers look for convergence with JP's draft WG item? George: should talk about it in sub-ip directorate meeting Questions to room: ~15 have read the draft ~20 find it useful ~30 think it should become wg doc in some wg 0 find it not ready Osama Aboul-Magd: a transport view to LMP ----------------------------------------- draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-00.txt Kireeti: What does control plane discovery mean? Is LMP + LMP bootstrap close enough to what this draft does? Very useful spec, provides "language translation". Malcolm Betts: progress this draft before LMP bootstrap draft Ron Bonica: generic tunnel tracing ---------------------------------- Requirements doc is stable, WG LC complete. Time to work on solution, IANA has assigned UDP port, new context object added. Solicit feedback from implementers. Adopt as ccamp work item? Room poll: ~10 have read the draft -> need to take to list Ron (for Loa): MPLS and GMPLS change process -------------------------------------------- Status: lots of lively discussion, topics: - is this merely a reaffirmation of IETF process? - what is the role of a liaison? - when all approvals are not obtained? Is there any alternative to the dust bin? Don Fedyk: need better understanding, common model/language Monique Morrow: ITU/IETF need to work together Jerry Ash: document describing liaisons? Kireeti: there already is such as doc (may be insufficient), separate from this Bert: liaison process is wider issue (not specific to this WG) Malcolm Betts: draft fine for IP applications, how about non-IP apps? How can get those requirements recognized in IETF? Ron: requirements must be stated clearly to be understood by IETF WG Kireeti: Draft documents how ietf process works. The process may need a dust bin for bad ideas and another bin for "not in IETF scope, but not really broken". It is not addressed yet how to handle stuff the IETF doesn't like. Alex: Need interest by IETF community to make things happen, same thing applicable to anyone coming to IETF. People need to be convinced. Bert: subip area initially had problem with too many drafts, was fixed by requiring problem statements Marten: Process is very mature dealing with submissions by individuals, but not from other organizations. I-Ds not suited to deal with peer standardization organization. ITU can't do ascii diagrams or read through mailing list to gather IETF opinion. Need a way to apply IETF protocols to non-IETF problem. Kireeti: GMPLS work did step out of traditional ietf scope George: coopeation would work a lot better if clear requirements would be communicated instead of sending in solutions (even applies within IETF) Sharam Davari: another standardization organization should not have same weight as an individual submission Ron: I-D should be evaluated on its merit, author irrelevant Kireeti: ccamp charter update ----------------------------- - not done by WG consensus - proposed by chairs to AD, AD takes it to IESG/IAB Alex: correction: WG consensus *is* required but is not enough under consideration: - inter-area signaling and routing of generalized paths - crackback wrt inter-area - inter-as on hold until tewg produces requirements - explicitely put tunnel tracing in charter - routing extensions for Sonet/SDH - signaling for G.709 signaling - further LMP extensions - optical vpn *not* in charter milestones: - GMPLS MIB to WG LC in Aug 03 - protection/restoration functional spec and protocol changes to WG LC by Apr and Jul 03 (respectively) - tunnel tracing protocol to WG LC by Sep 03 - set milestones for inter-area path setup when ratified as charter changes need active discussion on list JP: combination of inter-area and inter-as is a good idea Kireeti: it is great if a common solution is available, but that is not reason enough to put inter-as on charter Marco: O-VPN started in ITU-T, on ppvpn charter, good chance for cooperation Kireeti: ccamp should keep an eye on solution |