MPLS/GMPLS Interworking
draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking-00.txt
Kenji Kumaki
ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Zafar Ali
zali@cisco.com
Tomohiro Otani otani@kddilabs.jp
Mallik Tatipamula mallikt@cisco.com
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
Summary of Requirements
• Deployment of GMPLS technology in existing IP/MPLS
networks
– No upgrade in the existing IP/MPLS routers
– It is difficult to upgrade all IP/MPLS routers to GMPLS capable
routers in SP networks due to a number of reasons.
– An effective way to make use of GMPLS network resources in
IP/MPLS networks (e.g. bandwidth….)
– Signaling from the MPLS routers to remote MPLS routers over GMPLS
networks
– An effective way to make use of both MPLS and GMPLS protection
(i.e. If MPLS LSPs are protected using MPLS FRR,they can be used
GMPLS protection.)
• “MPLS/GMPLS interworking” is a key for SPs.
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
Summary of this I-D
• “MPLS/GMPLS interworking” is a near charter item.
– Needed by some SPs
• “draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-05.txt” has already
been submitted.
Oki’s draft
– describes some migration scenarios and requirement to migrate from
MPLS to GMPLS networks.
– describes need of MPLS/GMPLS interworking for migration
from MPLS to GMPLS networks.
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
Summary of this I-D (cont.)
• This draft
– addresses MPLS-GMPLS(non-PSC)-MPLS case in oki’s draft.
– assumes to introduce GMPLS network without upgrading the existing
IP/MPLS routers.
– describes MPLS/GMPLS interworking.
– signaling aspects
– routing aspects
– MPLS/GMPLS priority mapping
– signaling of protected MPLS LSPs
– describes some operation considerations and pros and cons using
MPLS/GMPLS interworking.
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
MPLS/GMPLS interworking
• Signaling aspects
– Static (GMPLS LSP setup is not triggered by MPLS signaling, e.g.,
pre-configured or measurement based, e.g., bandwidth on demand)
– Dynamic (GMPLS LSP setup is triggered by MPLS signaling, e.g. ondemand based on signaling setup request)
• Routing aspects
– Border routers advertise setup and hold priority of the GMPLS FA-LSP
into MPLS networks.
– OSPF/ISIS extensions for link priority identification
– MPLS routers select a GMPLS FA-LSP during SPF calculation.
• MPLS/GMPLS priority mapping
– strict ERO case
– Mapping setup and hold priority of MPLS LSPs and GMPLS LSPs
• Signaling of protected MPLS LSPs
– Mapping protection of MPLS LSPs and GMPLS LSPs
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
Signaling of protected MPLS LSPs
In case of signaling with MPLS FRR from MPLS routers,
• Loose ERO case
– GMPLS LSP selection is a local decision at border router.
– “local protection desired” flag setting is used to select a proper GMPLS
FA-LSP.
• Strict ERO case
– 1:1 protected GMPLS LSP is selected.
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005
Next Actions
• Add the terminology section and correct some typos
• Need more comments and feedback from WG
• Request WG to accept this I-D as a WG document
62th IETF Minneapolis March 2005