2.6.1 Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 64th IETF Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. It may now be out-of-date.
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional CCAMP Web Page

Last Modified: 2005-11-08


Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Routing Area Director(s):

Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>

Routing Area Advisor:

Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>

Technical Advisor(s):

Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
To Subscribe: majordomo@ops.ietf.org
In Body: subscribe ccamp
Archive: https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp

Description of Working Group:

Organizational Overview

The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining
a common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for
physical path and core tunneling technologies of Internet and telecom
service providers (ISPs and SPs), e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical
switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE, in cooperation
with the MPLS WG. In this context, measurement refers to the
acquisition and distribution of attributes relevant to the setting up
of tunnels and paths.

CCAMP WG work scope includes:

- Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters
(measurement attributes) for describing links and paths that are
required for routing and signaling. These will be developed in
conjunction with requests and requirements from other WGs to
ensure overall usefulness.

- Definition of protocol(s) and extensions to them required for
link and path attribute measurement. Link Management Protocol (LMP)
is included here.

- Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and
signalling (RSVP-TE) required for path establishment. Protocol
formats and procedures that embody these extensions will be done
jointly with the WGs supervising those protocols.

- Definition of the mechanisms required to determine the route and
properties of an established path (tunnel tracing).

- Definition of MIB modules and other OAM techniques relevant to the
protocols and extensions specified within the WG.

CCAMP WG currently works on the following tasks:

- Define how the properties of network resources gathered by a
measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing
protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS. CCAMP defines the generic
description of the properties and how they are distributed in OSPF.
The specifics of distribution within IS-IS are being addressed in
the ISIS WG.

- Define signaling and routing mechanisms and extensions to allow path
and tunnel setup and maintenance across multiple domains, where a
domain may be an IGP area, an Autonomous System, or any other region
of topological visibility. To this end, work cooperatively with the

- Define abstract link and path properties needed for link and path
protection. Specify 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, routing, and measurement protocols, either
separately or in combination.

- Identify which requirements for signaling and routing for ASON are
not currently met by protocols defined in CCAMP; based on these,
define mechanisms to address these requirements.

- Document issues and strategies for the migration of MPLS-based
deployments to GMPLS. Based on the outcome, identify protocol
machinery that implementations may have to change to ease the
migration from MPLS to GMPLS.

In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the
following other WGs: MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR, L1VPN and PCE. The
WG will also cooperate with the ITU-T.

Goals and Milestones:

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


  • draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-10.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-09.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-11.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-10.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-06.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-02.txt

    Request For Comments:

    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

    Current Meeting Report

    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)
    No comments on agenda
    1. WG status, RFCs, drafts, charter (chairs)
    - 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)
    - 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
    3. RFC 3946 bis (Adrian)
    - 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)
    - 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
      Draft should give guidance where it is hard to interpret the RFCs. Where
      options exist this draft should not impose requirements, but can suggest
    - 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
    - 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)
    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)
    No changes to this draft during this year, but we now have implementations
    - 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
    - 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)
    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
    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
      However, before going into solutions we need to set out requirements which
      - "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
    - 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)
    - 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)
    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)
    - 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)
    Out of time
    Please look at slides and comment on the list
    13. Management plane / Control plane exchange of LSPs (Dan Li)
    Out of time
    Please look at slides and comment on the list
    14. Graceful Shutdown in GMPLS Traffic Engineering Networks (Zafar)
    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)
    Out of time
    Please look at slides and comment on the list


    Agenda and Working Group Status
    ITU-T Liaison
    RFC 3946-bis
    Addressing draft
    Hierarchy bis
    ASON Call Signaling
    ASON Routing Solution
    Inter-domain issues - Tomohiro
    Inter-domain issues - Dimitri
    MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking
    Lambda labels
    Management plane / Control plane exchange of LSPs
    Graceful Shutdown in GMPLS Traffic Engineering Networks
    Control Plane Resiliency Issues