Lou Berger | 3 Apr 23:19 2009
Picon

IETF 74 CCAMP draft minutes available

All,

Thanks in large part to the efforts of our new WG Secretary, Daniel 
King, the draft minutes from the CCAMP WG sessions in San Francisco have 
been uploaded and are available from:
	http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/ccamp.htm

Please take a look and send any comments or corrections you believe 
should be reflected in the minutes.  There are a few names that are 
missing, so help identifying your comments would be particularly 
appreciated.

Please provide comments by the end of next week (March 10) so that final 
minutes can be published the subsequent week.

Much thanks,
Lou (and Deborah)

Lou Berger | 4 Apr 00:05 2009
Picon

Poll on RFC4873 segment-recording-desired flag

All,
	Nic Neate correctly pointed out in our last meeting that the 
segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673 was never formally 
assigned a value.  The flag is identified to be carried in the 
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.  The current set of defined SESSION_ATTRIBUTE 
object flags is available under the IANA "Session Attribute Object 
Flags" registry, see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/.

The Chairs of the WG intend to work with IANA for correct this omission 
and get a value assigned for the flag.  We would like to ask that those 
who have implemented RFC 4873, to inform us of what value they are 
currently using.  Our intent is then to ask IANA for assignment of the 
most used (and available) value.  Your response may be public or private 
at your choosing.  Private responses should go to either or both WG 
chairs.  All responses will be summarized (without identifying 
information) on the CCAMP WG mail list.

If you have an RFC 4873 implementation we ask that you provide the 
following information:

1.  Organization:
1.1   Organization url(s):

2.  Status:
2.1     [ ] Development
2.2     [ ] Alpha
2.3     [ ] Beta
2.4     [ ] Product
2.5     [ ] Other (describe):

(Continue reading)

rfc-editor | 4 Apr 01:46 2009

RFC 5493 on Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networ


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 5493

        Title:      Requirements for the Conversion between 
                    Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in 
                    a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 
                    Network
        Author:     D. Caviglia, D. Bramanti,
                    D. Li, D. McDysan
        Status:     Informational
        Date:       April 2009
        Mailbox:    diego.caviglia <at> ericsson.com, 
                    dino.bramanti <at> ericsson.com, 
                    danli <at> huawei.com, dave.mcdysan <at> verizon.com
        Pages:      11
        Characters: 21991
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5493.txt

From a carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a permanent
connection (PC) into a soft permanent connection (SPC) and vice
versa, without actually affecting data plane traffic being carried
over it, is a valuable option.  In other terms, such operation can be
seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
(Continue reading)

Picon

MPLS2009 - CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS

The MPLS 2009 International Conference, the 12th Annual International
Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 25 -
28, 2009, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is
soliciting an abstract summarizing a proposed presentation representing
original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics. The deadline is
May 8, 2009.

Presentations addressing new technologies and operational experience are
being solicited from network equipment vendors, service/transport
providers, the research community, government agencies, and enterprise
users. 

If you are interested in further information or want to submit a
presentation
abstract, please see the following URL:

http://www.isocore.com/mpls2009/call_for_papers/cfp.htm 

In particular, these topics are of interest for CCAMP:
*	Migration to a unified MPLS/GMPLS architecture for packet
networks 
*	Multi-layer networks and integration with non-packet
technologies
*	Non-MPLS based Carrier/Metro Ethernet services
*	GMPLS Applications (L1 VPNs, ASON, Optical Internetworking,
NNI/UNI)
*	GMPLS Experience in Research Networks
*	GMPLS control plane resilience, scaling and robustness
*	GMPLS interaction with routing protocols  
Regards,
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 8 Apr 00:15 2009
Picon

I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
	Author(s)       : D. Papadimitriou
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2009-04-07

The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).

The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.

The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
are provided in other documents. This document defines to the OSPFv2
Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for
routing in an ASON.

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2009

 [page 1]

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt

(Continue reading)

Adrian Farrel | 8 Apr 00:32 2009
Picon

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt

FYI, Dimitri and I worked on this to address IETF last call comments and 
questions from IANA.

No changes of substance although the recommended/suggested IANA values did 
change a bit.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce <at> ietf.org>
Cc: <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:15 PM
Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> Title           : OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
> Author(s)       : D. Papadimitriou
> Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt
> Pages           : 27
> Date            : 2009-04-07
>
> The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
> an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
>
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 10 Apr 19:30 2009
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Ethernet Traffic Parameters
	Author(s)	: D. Papadimitriou, I. Property
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-07.txt
	Pages		: 13
	Date		: 2009-4-10
	
This document describes the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) - specific 
        Ethernet Traffic Parameters as described in MEF10.1 when using 
        Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource 
        ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

The IESG | 13 Apr 19:49 2009
Picon

Protocol Action: 'RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support '
   <draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-04.txt

Technical Summary

   The paths taken by Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
   Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems
   (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate,
   with each responsible for computing a segment of the path.

   To preserve confidentiality of topology within each AS, the PCEs
   support a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path (such
   as the segment of the path that traverses an AS), called the
   Confidential Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path
   Key Subobject (PKS) and embedding this subobject within the result of
   its path computation.

   This document describes how to carry Path Key Subobjects in the
(Continue reading)

Remi Theillaud | 14 Apr 15:42 2009

One question about draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt


  Hi CCAMP,

  One question about draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt.
  This draft defines a new Node-Attribute sub-TLV (Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV) as "optional sub-TLV for scoping reachability per TE Router-ID".
  How does this scoping occur when a router advertises reachability information on behalf of multiple TE Router IDs?
  Should a Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV be encoded *before* each Node IPv4/IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV?
 
  Regards,
  Rémi
PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri | 14 Apr 16:06 2009
Picon

RE: One question about draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt

hi remi: the encoding follows
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt>; hence, you will
find only one TE Router ID sub-TLV (together with one Node IPv4 / IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV) per top level
node attribute TLV per opaque LSA and have multiple TE LSAs.

thanks,
-dimitri.

________________________________

	From: owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Remi Theillaud
	Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:43 PM
	To: ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org
	Subject: One question about draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt
	
	

	  Hi CCAMP, 
	
	  One question about draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt. 
	  This draft defines a new Node-Attribute sub-TLV (Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV) as "optional sub-TLV for
scoping reachability per TE Router-ID". 
	  How does this scoping occur when a router advertises reachability information on behalf of multiple TE
Router IDs? 
	  Should a Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV be encoded *before* each Node IPv4/IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV? 
	  
	  Regards, 
	  RĂ©mi 
	


Gmane