Subject: draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt -> CCAMP OCT-12

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:50:41 -0400

Note that this draft has some changes, in particular. the hierarchy
requirements have been pulled back a bit.

        Hierarchy
        (1) extremely large number of LSPs within flat IGPs
        (2)  ability to signal LSPs across IGP hierarchy (e.g. OSPF areas)

(1) has been dropped, (2) is still there.

Other portions of the document have been cleaned up, and the editors are
encouraged to highlight the differences between the draft to the list.

On October 12th, Ed and I intend to notify CCAMP that the requirements for
restoration and hierarchy from the TEWG are complete.  Going once .....

thanks,

Jim

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Internet Traffic Engineering Working Group
of the IETF.
>
>       Title           : Network Hierarchy and Multilayer Survivability
>       Author(s)       : W. Lai et al.
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt
>       Pages           : 24
>       Date            : 02-Oct-01
>
> This document is the deliverable out of the Network Hierarchy and
> Survivability Techniques Design Team established within the Traffic
> Engineering Working Group.  This team collected and documented
> current and near term requirements for survivability and hierarchy
> in service provider environments.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt
>

---

From: Vijay Gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:54:33 -0400

> (1) has been dropped, (2) is still there.

Some current mpls TE implementations that I'm familiar with and have
worked on, use a large (for some value of large) number of LSP's within a
flat IGP, so dropping #1 might be a bit premature unless I'm missing
something here (which is possible)

/vijay

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:15:03 -0400 (EDT)

I am familiar with a few large deployments of LSPs w/in flat IGPs.  Where
large hovers upwards to 10k.

However, do you refer to anything beyond what's specified in:

draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09.txt
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-06.txt
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt

If not, then I believe the intent of the requirement was an order of
magnitude beyond what is possible today (e.g. take 10k -> 100-500k lsps)
This was presumably under the context of how one might support VPNs, edge
to edge, which required SLAs, which for some reason must equate to
tunnels.  (too much saki?)

As for doing 10k or so in one IGP, it seems to work as you note, so there
isn't really a percieved requirement for additional hierarchy at this
time, as no one wants to step up and say "I wanna deploy a million LSPs in
my network, and the current suite just doesn't cut it!"  (If this captures
your sentiment [the reader, not vijay] - speak up)  If we're fine w/ what
works today, it wouldn't be premature to not require more :)

Jim

---

From: Florian-Daniel Otel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:35:26 +0200 (MEST)

Jim, all

> Jim

With the risk of sounding like a bitter whiner, do I
mis-read the draft (and the group) or it is a 24 pages long equivalent
for "We're pretty happy with what there is, just give us standardized
inter-area signaling " ? 

Yours bluntly,

Florian

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:50:17 -0400 (EDT)

> for "We're pretty happy with what there is, just give us standardized

Oh no, that would only take 10 pages :)  I agree that many drafts do have
too many words.

In addition to the inter-area, don't forget the restoration stuff, which
was more widely agreed upon (and better defined).

There is a summarization in the introduction section which reads:

   Here is a summary of the findings:

   A. Survivability Requirements

   @ need to define a small set of interoperable survivability
     approaches in packet and non-packet networks
   @ suggested survivability mechanisms include
     -  1:1 path protection with pre-established backup capacity (non-
         shared)
     -  1:1 path protection with pre-planned backup capacity (shared)
     -  local restoration with repairs in proximity to the network
         fault
     -  path restoration through source-based rerouting
   @ timing bounds for service restoration to support voice call cutoff
     (140 msec to 2 sec), protocol timer requirements in premium data
     services, and mission critical applications
   @ use of restoration priority for service differentiation

   B. Hierarchy Requirements

   B.1. Horizontally Oriented Hierarchy (Intra-Domain)

   @ ability to set up many LSPs in a service provider network with
     hierarchical IGP, for the support layer 2 and layer 3 VPN services

   @ requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be
     developed to provide guidance for any necessary protocol
     extensions

regards,

Jim

---

From: Tricci So <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 08:48:25 -0700

Hi Kireeti,

May I ask, what is your plan for the "draft-ietf-tewg-mib-00.txt" since it has
been expired at the moment?

Thanks to your help.....
Tricci

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)

> May I ask, what is your plan for the "draft-ietf-tewg-mib-00.txt"
> since it been expired at the moment?

I'm on the hook to reissue it incorporating the many comments I got.
I planned to do it by last week end ...

Hopefully, in the coming week.

Kireeti.

---

From: Tricci So <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 08:24:33 -0700

Many thanks... Tricci