Identifiers for MPLS-TP

George Swallow

In Anaheim, draft was identified as a pre-req for G.8110.1

Incomplete draft was rushed to last call Changes in various Framework drafts as

well as a volcano made it impossible to produce a quality draft in time for ITU meeting

Now declaring that the draft is NOT in last call

Status

Incorporated most of the ITU liaison comments

Addressed many of the mail list issues Much rewriting for clarification Many comments have not been addressed

Changes in rev -02

Equated Interface (IF) to Access Point (AP) Clarified use of source and destination

◦ via notation in BNF◦ Noting that in a configured environment East and

West would be equivalent◦ Src/Dst terminology is inherent in GMPLS

Clarifications

LSP-num – 16 bit identifier as in RFC3209Unique within scope of tunnel

LSP-ID formed as local{Global-ID::node::Tun-ID}+remote{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}::LSP-ID◦ Canonical Format of LSP-ID

lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first◦ Compatible with GMPLS signaling

MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers

Primary motivation is to have a simple way of forming globally unique MEP-IDs

[Global-ID]::Node_ID::Tunnel_ID::LSP_ID Similar to Pseudowire Attachment Circuit ID It has also been pointed out that this will be

useful for signaling associated bi-directional lsp

Rationale for two Tunnel-IDs

Node A signals tunnel 5 to node B with an object requesting an associated bidirectional tunnel

Node B signals tunnel 7 to node B returning the object completing the association

This also raises the question of whether two LSP-IDs are needed

(I don’t think this is necessary for initial setup, but for regrooming it could be an issue)

Example of Associated Bidirectional LSP

+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

| | | | | | | |

| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |

| T-PE1 | | S-PE2 | | S-PE3 | | T-PE4 |

+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

The identification for the Pseudowire is:AGI = AGI1

Src-Global_ID = GID1

Src-Node_ID = T-PE1

Src-AC_ID = AC1

Dst-Global_ID = GID1

Dst-Node_ID = T-PE1

Dst-AC_ID = AC4

MEP_ID at point A = AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AC1

MIPs same LSPs

PW status from a S-PE is sent by the node

Pseudowire Maintenance PointsTentative resolution

Current Status: Two formatsGlobal-ID as per RFC5003ITU Carrier Code

Issue:Should these be combinable with all other

identifiers that need global uniquenessOr should some limits exist on mixing and matching

ITU and IP style IDs?Need to figure out exactly where these will get

used before deciding

Service Provider IDs

Many open issues – this is a partial list

1. IPv6

2. Support for all forms of IF-IDs allowed in GMPLS

3. Support for other PHOP formats for identifying Ifs

4. Two LSP-IDs as well as two tunnel-IDs

5. Do we need circuit-IDs as well as MEG-IDs

Other open Issues