64th ietf vancouver november 2005 ccamp working group online agenda and slides at:

64th IETF Vancouver November 2005

CCAMP Working Group

Online Agenda and Slides at:http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/agenda


Agenda (1 of 3)• Administrivia (chairs, 5)• WG status, RFCs, drafts, charter (chairs, 10)• Liaison from ITU-T (Lyndon, 10)• RFC 3946 bis (Adrian, 5)

- feedback from OIF- get closure on this trivial point- next steps- make I-D a WG draft and last call it

• Addressing Draft (Kohei, 10)- identify new material- raise open issues - will we see more issues or are we done?- discussion of how this document should be focussed

• Hierarchy bis - Signaled FAs (Arthi, 15)- what is the problem with the hierarchy draft?- is this a problem we need to solve? - do we need dynamic, numbered, bidirecitonal LSPs?- are there other associated problems (e.g. dynamic bundling) - do we need to solve those problems?- why not use LMP?- why discuss here and not in MPLS?

• ASON Call signaling (Adrian, 5)- plans to split the draft- how/why have we changed call signaling?


Agenda (2 of 3)• ASON Routing solution (Dimitri, 10)

- discussion of proposed solutions

• Inter-domain issues (Dimitri and Tomohiro, 10)- discussion of issues with inter-domain GMPLS a. requirements for advertising inter-domain TE links b. IP vs TE Reachability - compare with draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp - consideration of TE reachability exchange - need to also exchange switching capability information - need to also exchange termination capabilities c. implications for aggregation d. how does this stack up against PCE?

• MPLS/GMPLS Migration and Interworking (Kohei, 15)- what are we trying to achieve?- what are the models available?- do we want to support all of these models?

• Lambda labels (Richard, 10)- scope of the problem- why current generalized labels are not sufficient- is this a problem we want/need to solve?- discussion of potential solutions

• VCAT/LCAS (Richard, 10)- overview of VCAT and LCAS- how does this relate to GMPLS?- what signaling problems arise?- is this a problem we want/need to solve?- discussion of potential solutions


Agenda (3 of 3)• MS-SPRing (Adrian for Diego, 10)

- overview of MS-SPRing- how does this relate to GMPLS?- what signaling problems arise?- is this a problem we want/need to solve?- discussion of potential solutions

• Management plane / Control plane exchange of LSPs (Adrian for Diego, 5)

- what is the problem?- is CCAMP interested in a solution?- discussion of potential solutions

• Graceful Shutdown in GMPLS Traffic Engineering Networks (Zafar, 10)

- what is the function?- is CCAMP interested in the function?- discussion of potential solutions

• Control Plane Resiliency Issues (Young Kim, 10)- what components of resiliency and robustness are involved?- for each of the components: - what problems are we trying to solve and in what timescale? - why can't we use existing tools for these problems?


Document Status – New RFCs• MPLS Working Group

– RFC 4201: Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)– RFC 4206: Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-

Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)• CCAMP

– RFC 4202 Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)

– RFC 4203 OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)

– RFC 4204 Link Management Protocol (LMP)– RFC 4207 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital

Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages– RFC 4208 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network

Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model

– RFC 4209 Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems

• IS-IS Working Group– RFC 4205 Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in

Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)


Document Status – Beyond the Working Group

• Eight drafts in RFC Editor’s Queue– Decrease of five since last time– None is blocked by a reference– Editor process now going well

• Several I-Ds in authors’ 48-hours

• Nine drafts with AD for review– Increase of one since last time

• Three drafts being updated after MIB Dr.


Draft Status – Still with the Working Group• One draft updated after WG last call, not yet

published– ASON Routing Evaluation

• Six active Working Group draft remain– GMPLS Addressing (agenda slot)– GMPLS ASON Lexicography

• Pending response from ITU-T before WG last call– LSP Stitching

• New revision. Needs to stabilize, but now “ready”– Inter-domain RSVP-TE

• New revision. Needs to stabilize, but now “ready”– Per-domain Path Computation

• New revision. Needs to stabilize, but now “ready”– ASON Signaling (agenda slot)


Charter!• All milestones complete

– Submitted revised charter and milestones to IESG on October 25th

– “Approved” by IESG October 27th

– Ready to roll?– Awaiting formal publication of revised charter


Charter – Concerns Raised in Review

• AD raised the following concerns– Too many milestones

• Too much micro-management• Too many drafts

– Too many drafts going to working group last call in the same months

• Need to pace our work and spread it out

• Result is a lighter list of milestones


New charter text (1 of 2)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 (e.g. TEWG) to iensure 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.


New charter text (2 of 2)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 to make possible the creation of paths that span multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes, and multiple providers, including techniques for crankback.

– 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 PCE and MPLS WGs.

– Identify issues in GMPLS interoperation among various implementations, including those related to addressing, path computation and constraints. Document clarifications of the current specifications.

– Analyze the requirements and architecture for GMPLS multi-layer networks where a layer may be a technology layer or may indicate a client/server network relationship. Develop routing and signaling protocol extensions as necessary to satisfy the requirements. To this end, work cooperatively with the PCE WG.

– 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.

– Define a protocol that can determine the actual route and other properties of paths set up by CCAMP signaling protocols, as well as other types of tunnels (tunnel tracing).

– 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: TEWG, MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR, L1VPN and PCE. The WG will also cooperate with the ITU-T.


Oct 05 First version WG I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPFOct 05 First version WG I-D for Automatic discovery of MPLS-TE mesh membershipNov 05 Submit ASON Routing evaluation I-D for IESG reviewNov 05 Cross-WG review of I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPFNov 05 First version WG I-D MPLS to GMPLS migration strategiesDec 05 Submit RSVP-TE extensions for inter-domain signaling I-D for IESG reviewDec 05 Submit Per-domain path computation signaling I-D for IESG reviewDec 05 First version of WG I-D for ASON Routing solutionsDec 05 First version WG I-D Requirements for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region NetworksDec 05 First version WG I-D for Evaluation of existing protocols for MLN/MRNJan 06 Submit GMPLS signaling in support of Call Management I-D for IESG reviewJan 06 Submit I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS and OSPF for IESG reviewJan 06 First version WG I-D for Protocol solutions for MLN/MRNJan 06 First version of WG I-D for OSPF-TE/GMPLS MIB moduleJan 06 First version WG Informational I-D for Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and

protected pathsFeb 06 Submit GMPLS/ASON lexicography I-D for IESG reviewFeb 06 Submit LSP Stitching I-D for IESG reviewFeb 06 First version WG I-D MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutionsMar 06 Submit I-D for Automatic discovery of MPLS-TE mesh membership for IESG reviewMar 06 First version WG I-D GMPLS OAM RequirementsApr 06 Submit GMPLS routing and signaling interoperability advice I-D for IESG reviewApr 06 First version of WG I-D for additional MIB module to cover RSVP-TE signaling extensionsJun 06 Submit Informational I-D for Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and protected

paths for IESG reviewOct 06 Submit MPLS to GMPLS migration strategies I-D for IESG reviewNov 06 Submit ASON Routing solutions I-D for IESG reviewDec 06 Submit Requirements for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks I-D for IESG reviewJan 07 Submit MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutions I-D for IESG reviewFeb 07 Submit Evaluation of existing protocols for MLN/MRN for IESG reviewMar 07 Submit OSPF-TE/GMPLS MIB module for MIB doctor and IESG reviewJun 07 Submit GMPLS OAM Requirements I-D for IESG reviewAug 07 Submit Protocol solutions for MLN/MRN I-D for IESG reviewDec 07 Submit MIB module for RSVP-TE signaling extensions for MIB doctor and IESG reviewDec 07 Recharter or close Working Group

64th ietf vancouver november 2005 ccamp working group online agenda and slides at:

Documents