Re: New draft on Extra class LSP

[Kohei Shiomoto <Shiomoto.Kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

Hi, Adrian

In Section 9 of draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-01.txt, 
the shared mesh restoration is addressed. Extra traffic cannot be 
carried because the protecting LSPs are not instantiated in shared mesh 
restoration networks. But the resource for the protecting LSPs are 
reserved to back up the failure of primary LSPs. The reserved resource 
could be allocated for extra traffic to enhance the network utilization.

The purpose of our draft is to initiate the discussion on how to handle 
extra class LSP using the reserved link resource for the protecting LSPs 
while the draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-01.txt addresses 
the signaling of primary and protecting LSPs.

Regarding extra class LSP, the following issues need to be addressed: 
(1) advertisement of available resource for extra class LSP, (2) extra 
class LSP indication in signaling message (3) extra class LSP preemption 
signaling, and (4) preventing unintended connections. Our draft provides 
the problem statement of these issues.

Hope this clarify the difference.
Thank you for your interest.
---
Kohei

> Shiomoto_san,
>
> Could you help us prepare for Vienna by summarizing the difference between
> your draft and
> draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-01.txt especially with
> reference to the carrying of "extra traffic" on the resources of a
> protection path in a mesh network.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kohei Shiomoto" <Shiomoto.Kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:18 AM
> Subject: New draft on Extra class LSP
>
>
>  
> > Sorry for the incorrect subject in the previous mail. I resend it with a
> > new subject.
> >
> > Hi, all
> >
> > Please notice that a new internet-draft has been posted. The draft is
> > targeted at the IETF57 ccamp meeting. The draft is prepared to initiate
> > the discussion at the ccamp-wg on the extra class LSP service, which
> > makes use of reserved but unallocated bandwidth for the protecting LSPs
> > in the pre-planned LSP re-routing recovery method (including shared mesh
> > restoration).  Comments and feedbacks are highly appreciated.
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Kohei Shiomoto
> > NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
> > Phone +81 422 59 4402, Fax +81 422 59 6387
> > 3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    
> ----------------------
>  
> >    Title        : Extra class LSP service using protecting resources in
> >                   GMPLS networks
> >    Author(s)    : K. Shimano et al.
> >    Filename    : draft-pil-ccamp-extra-lsp-00.txt
> >
> > This document provides the problem statement on a extra class LSP ser-
> > vice and addresses the issues.  The extra class LSP uses the resource
> > reserved but not allocated for the protecting LSPs in the pre-planned
> > LSP re-routing without extra-traffic (including shared mesh) recovery
> > method.  Network utilization is improved because the resource reserved
> > for the protecting LSPs are used for the extra class LSPs.  The extra
> > class LSP is preempted less frequently than the conventional priority
> > mechanism using setup and holding priorities because the resource
> > reserved for the protecting LSPs is allocated only if the working LSP
> > fails, which is usually expected to rarely occur.  This document pro-
> > poses the extra class LSP service using the resource reserved but not
> > allocated for the protecting LSP at the provisioning phase.  This docu-
> > ment addresses the issues on the extra class LSP: (1) advertisement of
> > available resource, (2) extra class LSP indication in signaling message
> > (3) extra class LSP preemption signaling, and (4) preventing unintended
> > connections.
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pil-ccamp-extra-lsp-00.txt
> >