Requirements on the
O-UNI
1
3/11/2016
Olivier Duroyon, Alcatel
Monica Lazer, AT&T
Jen-Wei Kuo, Fujitsu
Hirokazu Ishimatsu, Japan Telecom
Zhi-Wei Lin, Lucent
Mark Jones, Sprint
Yang Cao, Sycamore
Vijaya Poudyal, Telcordia
Philip Walch, TyCom
Yong Xue, UUNET/Worldcom
Curtis Brownmiller, Worldcom
General Switched Network
Architecture
RA
UNI
Control
Plane
UNI
OCC
RA
AD2
OCC
AD1
I-NNI
E-NNI
CCI
NMI-A
Plane
CCI
NMI-T
User
Plane
SNC
NE
2
3/11/2016
SNC
PI
Management
Business Models
• Four business models to be supported
– ISP owning all layer 1 infrastructure
• Complete trust – router & ONE all owned by one ISP
– ISP owning partial or leasing layer 1 infrastructure
• May not have complete trust – router & ONE may be in
separate admin domains
– Retailer or wholesaler for multi-services
• Does not have trust – router & ONE in separate admin domain
– Carrier’s carrier, or bandwidth broker
• Does not have trust – only ONE
3
3/11/2016
ASON dial-up requirements
• Connection operations (create, modify, delete)
– Various facets of modify – disruptive, non-disruptive
– Need to define what constitutes non-disruptive, what disruptive
• Connection resilience
– Specify availability of connection
– Specify specific constraints
• SRLG, link disjoint, node disjoint, etc.
– Should not specify service provider architectural solution, e.g.,
protection type used
• Protection type only a means to achieve resilience – e.g., availability
4
3/11/2016
ASON dial-up requirements
• Control plane network resilience
– Should not have dependencies of signaling network with transport
network
• Allows for re-use of signaling network for control of other transport
networks – GMPLS principle
– Signaling network fail should not impact existing connections
• E.g., RSVP control plane failure would tear down existing
connections?
• Scheduled connection services
– Support for scheduled connection by different means
• Scheduling provided by user scheduler – no need for signaling
• Scheduling provided by service provider scheduler – signaling needed
– Have we discussed and examined these different aspects
• E.g., if service provider  how to guarantee scheduled connection
when network is composed of non-deterministic connection requests?
5
3/11/2016
ASON dial-up requirements
• Naming & addressing requirements
– Discussion still on-going among carriers requirements
• Support name (no semantics) or address (semantics)
• Use source/dest user names OR source/dest ONE names
– OIF decided to use the latter
• Support multiple user name spaces (IP,ATM, NSAP)
• Who provides name/address translation/directory service
(service provider will provide – current agreement)
– Is there need for 2-phase address resolution
• What is need for user to query address and then use address to
signal  redundant step?
• Is protocol limitations governing requirements  or should we
extend protocol to support variable name types (up to 160 bits)
– E.g., new C-type for a generic name?
6
3/11/2016
Proposal
• IPO/CCAMP WG start first from requirements
• Requirements and framework work should be
coordinated with other standards bodies (OIF
carrier document, ITU G.astn)
– Multiple Requirements and Framework I-Ds should be
merged
• Signaling protocol specification need to meet the
requirements
– RSVP-TE for O-UNI (yu-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext-00)
– LDP for O-UNI (ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-00)
7
3/11/2016