CCAMP WG - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-enhanced-lsps-03.txt

[Dimitri Papadimitriou <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be>]

NAME OF I-D:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-enhanced-lsps-03.txt

SUMMARY:

In the scope of the domain service model, the main objective of
this proposal is to integrate within optical services, the Optical
Multicast concept, the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Inference model,
the Virtual Private optical Network (VPoN) model, the Class-of-
Priorities and the Class-of-Service (CoS) augmented model; but also
enhanced protection and restorations mechanisms (in optical meshed 
networks) as well as signalling security levels. 

In the scope of the domain service model, this draft covers the User-
to-Network Interface (UNI) services and the specific services provided
through the Network-to-Network Interface (NNI). 

RELATED DOCUMENTS

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chiu-strand-unique-olcp-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-ip-optical-framework-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poj-optical-multicast-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bala-mpls-optical-uni-signalling-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-optical-restoration-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signalling-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fontana-gmpls-control-g709-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-2474
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-2475

WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK

Today i don't think this document fits to any WG - the purpose
was to define optical services refering to the use of a domain
service model (augmented and overlay model)

WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG.

In fact such kind of document should be either targeted at the
CCAMP (if by control we include "service-driven" approach as well)
or in the IPO (but the document has already been requested to be
presented at the CCAMP) so... i think that only the CCAMP remains
for this document.

JUSTIFICATION

Current IP protocols extensions for services (Integrated or
Differentiated), for traffic-engineering (Multi-Protocol Label
Switching), for privacy (Virtual Private Networks), for multicast
applications (IP Multicast protocols) and for security (IPSec
Protocol) results from the short-term perspective when the IP
protocol was defined at the beginning of the eighties. Now, the
current developments on optical networking are challenging the same
problem: if these features are not included from the beginning
within the signalling and routing protocols used in optical
networking, future needs won’t be covered by the current
developments.

The main objective of this proposal is to include within the LSP
parameters used within signalling and routing protocols the Virtual
Private optical Network (VPoN) model, the Class-of-Priorities (CoP)
and the Class-of-Service (CoS) augmented model and the optical
multicast trees. Enhancement considered in this document cover also
the protection/restoration and fault-tolerance mechanisms as well as
signalling security levels.

In order to structure the integration of these features within the
signalling and routing protocols, we propose a classification
separating the parameters distributed within an optical sub-network
(Identification and Service parameters) from the one centralized on
directory service (Policy-related parameters). This means that we
consider for scalability, convergence and performance reasons that
keeping all the policy-related parameters would result in an
overflow of information to be distributed throughout the optical-
network giving rise to an increasing convergence time which could in
turn increase the setup time of a LSP.