Top Banner
George Swallow
12

George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Mar 27, 2015

Download

Documents

Adam Walton
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

George Swallow

Page 2: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

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?Needs to be sorted for ACH-TLV draftBalance of presentation using “SP-ID” as

placeholder without specifying which one(s)

Page 3: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Need IF-ID on TunnelTunnelWorking Label-Switched PathProtection Label-Switched Path

MEP

MIP

Link InterfaceTunnel Interface

Page 4: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Node IDs◦ 32-bit ID assigned by operator◦ Need not be an IP Address, but◦ Can be auto-generated from an IPv4 address

Interface IDs◦ Logical Interface Handle

32-bit ID that is assigned from a space local to a particular node

◦ IF-ID ::= Node-id::LIH◦ Only needed on tunnels and links

Page 5: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Tunnel-ID formed as local{[Sp-ID]::node::tunnel-num}

+remote{[Sp-ID]::node::tunnel-num}◦ Tunnel-num is unique within scope of Node-ID◦ Addresses issue of independent destination tunnel

space◦ Canonical Format of Tunnel-ID

lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first

Page 6: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

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

LSP-ID formed as local{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID::LSP-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

Page 7: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

MEP – Maintenance Endpoint◦ Management function associated with an Tunnel,

LSP, or PW endpoint MEG - Maintenance entity group

◦ A set of peer MEPs ME - Maintenance entity

◦ A relationship between two MEPs within a MEG A MEP belongs to one and only one MEG A MEP may belong to multiple MEs

This is normal for P2MP objects

Page 8: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

TunnelWorking (Label-Switched) PathProtection (Label-Switched) Path

MEP

MEG

ME

Working Path being rerouted

Page 9: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

TunnelWorking (Label-Switched) PathProtection (Label-Switched) Path

MEP

MEG

ME

Working Path being rerouted

Note: MEG & ME for Tunnel or Protect LSPsnot shown

Page 10: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

MEG-ID◦ 13 byte character string

MEP-ID ◦ 13 bit-id unique within MEG-ID

Page 11: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Tunnels◦ MEG-ID = Tunnel-ID◦ MEP-ID ::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num

LSPs◦ MEG-ID – TBD (was = LSP-ID)◦ MEP-ID::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num::LSP-

Num

Page 12: George Swallow. Current Status: Two formats Global-ID as per RFC5003 ITU Carrier Code Issue: Should these be combinable with all other identifiers that.

Update draft according to this presentation + notes from MEAD team meeting

Working group draft (not necessarily in this order)