Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp) Charter

Current Meeting Report
Slides

2.7.1 Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modifield: 05/20/2002

Chair(s):

Ron Bonica <ronald.p.bonica@wcom.com>
Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>

Sub-IP Area Director(s):

Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Sub-IP Area Advisor:

Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Technical Advisor(s):

Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
To Subscribe: majordomo@ops.ietf.org
In Body: subscribe ccamp
Archive: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp

Description of Working Group:

Organizational Overview

The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining a common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for ISP and SP core tunneling technologies.

CCAMP WG tasks include:

- Define signalling protocols and measurement protocols such that they support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies (e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE) using input from technology-specific working groups such as MPLS, IPO, etc.

- Define signalling and measurement protocols that are independent of each other. This allows applications other than the signalling protocol to use the measurement protocol; it also allows the signalling protocol to use knowledge obtained by means other than the measurement protocol.

- Develop and define a set of protocol-independent metrics and parameters for describing links and paths that can be carried in protocols. These will be developed in conjunction with requests and requirements from other WGs (e.g., TEWG, PPVPN, etc.) to insure overall usefulness.

- Abstract link and path properties needed for link and path protection. Define signalling mechanisms for path protection, diverse routing and fast path restoration. Ensure that multi-layer path protection and restoration functions are achievable using the defined signalling and measurement protocols, either separately or in combination.

- Define how the properties of network resources gathered by the measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS.

- Define the relationship between layer 3 routing protocols and the common signalling protocol for establishing and maintaining paths.

- Using input from the TE working group, ensure that the signalling and measurement protocols provide both the information and the control functions adequate to support the traffic provisioning and engineering operations of service providers.

In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the following other WGs and constituencies: TEWG, PPVPN, IPO, MPLS, IPORPR, ISIS, OSPF, and GSMP.

CCAMP Documents Joint with MPLS:

draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt

draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt

draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt

Under consideration:

- draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt

- draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt

- draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt

- draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt

- and draft-bonica-tunneltrace-01.txt to this section.

Goals and Milestones:

Done		Post strawman WG goals and charter
FEB 01		Begin discussion of the framework and the requirement documents for signalling and for measurement
FEB 01		Identify and document a limited set of candidate solutions for signalling and for measurement. Among candidate control solutions to be considered are the existing GMPLS drafts.
Done		Build appropriate design teams
APR 01		Submit Initial framework and requirement documents
Done		Submit WG document defining path setup portions of common control plane protocol
Done		Submit WG document defining common measurement plane protocol
MAY 01		Submit revised charter and milestones to IESG for IESG consideration of more detailed deliverables and determination of usefulness of continuation of WG

Internet-Drafts:

- draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt

- draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt

- draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-04.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-04.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-07.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-03.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-01.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-survey-02.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-01.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-00.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-00.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-00.txt

- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-00.txt

No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02jul/ccamp.txt

Minute takers were volunteered (Josh Broch and Eric Gray)

Document Status - Kireeti Kompella

WG documents: g709, lmp-wdm and oli-reqts are candidates for WG last call. A few people think that g-709, lmp-wdm and oli-reqts are ready, but there was no strong consensus so take to the list.

There is some consensus that lmp-04 is ready for WG last call (confirm on the list. Architecture is informational so it will go to IETF last call. Routing and ospf-gmpls-extensions-07 have been to last call - are they ready to go to IETF last call? The sdhsonet draft is informational and there were no strong objections to its going to IETF last call.

The carter update is way overdue. Items may be added - protection/restoration, crankback and multi-area operations. There were some questions about other items that have been brought up previously, but Kireeti pointed out that we work by rough consensus and this may exclude some things that a few people are interetsed in.

Wesam Alanqar presented a report of activities of ITU SG-15 including some FYI information on Automatic discovery (Q14/15). Kireeti had some comments on the presentation: the IETF does not recognize the OIF UNI and the OIF is not a standards body.

Stephen Trowbridge answered that there is a formal liaison relationship between the OIF and the ITU.

Dimitri Papadimitriou presented detailed status information on several drafts (see Agenda). Architecture completed last call 27 June. Bert Wijnen suggested that the problems with the Author list should be resolved. IS-IS and OSPF extensions for g-709 network control - framework is an ITU action item; the status of other documents is as Kireeti stated.

Kireeti had one comment - IS-IS work is currently being done in the IS-IS group while the OSPF work is being done in the CCAMP working group.

Dimitri continued with discussion of the signaling draft and solicited comments on it. The he discussed the SONET/SDH work in progress. Kireeti asked if Dimitri had discussed this work with people from the ITU.
Dimitri said that they have.

Alex Zinnin asked about the frequency of updates and asked for considerations about the stability of the protocols. Dimitri briefly talked about some of the considerations that are already included. Alex asked for a specific section and Dimitri agreed to add this.

Dimitri continued with recovery terminology, analysis and functional specification drafts. The functional specification did not make the dead-line for submission but will be available after the meeting. They will start on signaling and keep the documents consistent. They expect to move these documents as a block.

Kireeti stated that the documents have to be accepted as WG work on an individual basis. The WG members are free to contribute to the work - there is nothing special about the design team working on all of these drafts.

Continuing with recovery analysis - the draft talks about classification and applicability of recovery mechanisms. Dimitri asked if this should be a work group item. Kireeti said this would have to be taken to the list.

Dimitri asked if he could present the functional specification. This was not allowed as the draft was not available on time.

Dimitri next presented status on the final drafts on the agenda (lmp-ls).
Again he asked for consensus to include these as WG drafts and solicited

technical feedback.

Osama Aboul-Magd stated that new uses of SONET/SDH overhead should be handled via the ITU. Dimitri said that they are not proposing new usages.

Emir Ermilin - ???

Osama Aboul-Magd presented status on his draft on ASON extensions to CR-LDP.
He asked if the WG would accept this as a WG draft.

Kireeti pointed out that there is a meta discussion on the issue of progressing both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE in the MPLS working group tomorrow and suggested that the discussion should be taken to the mailing list after that has been addressed.

Chen-Ying Lee presented status information on her draft (rsvp-te-exclude-route) and asked if there is interest in this work in the working group and whether or not this should become a WG draft.

Ron suggested waiting to see how the charter updates and some other work progresses before attempting to see if this fits into the charter and is relevat to the working group.

??? Vasseur presented status on his drafts and suggested a possible evolution of the draft.

Satoru Matsoshima presented a service provider perspective on this work.

??? Vasseur asked if the WG will accept this work as WG drafts.

Ron asked how this work would fit into the current charter.

Bert Wijnen talked about the fact that these presentations are going into a lot of material not appropriate in the meeting context. He asked that each presenter who is proposing new work must include information about how the work fits into the "common" control and measurement plane context.

Other comments were made and Kireeti asked that the discussion be taken to the mailing list.

??? presented the next set of drafts and asked to add transport plane sub-network to the WG charter.

Tomiko Yakyu presented his proposals for extensions to routing for advertising sharable bandwidth. He asked if this work is interesting to the working group.

Dimitri Papadimitriou asked for the draft to include more information on how to make this work part of other efforts.

Ron suggested taking the discussion off-line.

Richu Rabbat presented work on fault notification. He pointed out that this item should fit within the charter and asked to have the working group accept the draft.

Ron aksed for a show of hands for people who have had a chance to read the draft and suggested that - based on the small number of people who had read it - that this should be taken up on the list.

Kireeti suggested that there should be some work on requirements before going further on this effort.

Dimitri Papadimitriou discussed work on ASON extensions to RSVP-TE. He asked if the WG believes this to be valuable work and should eventually be put forward to the ITU.

Kireeti talked about the need to work out the relationship with the ITU on these issues.

Choy asked why the work does nt include call/connection information.

Kireeti said that the functional specification should first capture the solution independent requirements.

Stephen Trowbridge asked what further information the IETF requires.

Dimitri and Kireeti answered the question in detail.

Dimitri Papadimitriou presented work on Applicability of LMP failure correlation, etc. in LMP-WDM and asked if there is interest in doing more work in this area.

Ron asked to find out if anyone had read the document. A very small number of people had and Ron suggested trying to generate interest in the work on the mailing list.

Dimitri continued with his presentation on LSP bandwidth modification (LBM) and asked if the working group is ready to accept the draft as a WG document.

Based on the small number of readers of the draft, Ron suggested taking the discussion to the mailing list.

Kohei Shiomoto talked briefly about some thinking they have done on multi area TE issues. He said that there is no mechanism to advertise traffic demand over TE links. He suggests that traffic measurement should be advertised using FA-LSP and we should start discussion on multi-layer path network control.

Dimitri said that a year ago, we punted on multi-area issues and he would like to know if there is now interest in doing this.

Eiji Oki presented some ideas and issues on using upstream allocation of labels and bi-directional signaling. He asked to have this work accepted by the WG.

Ron asked that this discussion be taken to the list.

Sung Woo Ryu presented his work on Network State Information Database.

He said that NSID is a requirement for optical networks.
Ron recommended taking this work to the mailing list.

Emmanuel Vigoureux presented his work on architectural considerations for Hybrid photonic networks (HPN). He asked that this be considered as a core work for the WG.

Ron asked how this fits into the charter and how much interest there is.

A fair number of people had read the draft.

Dimitri pointed out that this architectural perspective is useful as it deals with vertical control plane issues whereas the perspective in all

other work is horizontal (focused on common aspects).

Ron then asked that the discussion be carried forward to the mailing list.

Ron then pointed out that there were 5 minutes remaining in the WG slot and aksed for one of the people who had been unable to get a slot to give their presentation.

Wataru Imajuku presented an overview of his draft on multilayer routing using multilayer switch capable LSRs.

Dimitri suggested integrating the abstratced requirements associated with this work into other drafts.