Subject: revised charter for MPLS WG

From: Vijay Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:33:12 -0800

Here is an update of the WG charter.  There weren't many comments on the
list -- the main comments were:

Item 1. Support for Aggregated QoS

   Andy Malis ([email-masked])
   >8.  Define the use of Differentiated and Integrated Services in an MPLS
   >environment.

   I suggest the above objective be changed to "aggregated QoS", as
discussed 
   in November.

There was not much discussion this subject matter.  George Swallow felt such
a change would limit the charter, while Grenville Armitage felt the current
wording limits the charter to two specific QoS models.

I have reworded the objective to read:

   8.  Define the support of Differentiated and Integrated Services,
including aggregated QoS, in an MPLS environment.

Item 2. Liaison with other standards bodies

   Andy Malis ([email-masked])
   On a different charter topic, I think the charter should specifically 
   mention that the WG plans to liaise with other standards bodies,
especially 
   in the optical area, such as OIF, ITU-T, ANSI, ODSI, etc.. 

There was no consensus on this issue.  However, ODSI was added to the list
of standard bodies already mentioned in the charter.  If a formal liaison
is required with a particular standards body, the IAB will be contacted
to set one up.

Item 3. Division of work between TE-WG and MPLS WG

   Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
   Should the new charter contain some words about the
   division of work between the MPLS WG and the TE WG?

There was no further discussion on this subject.  The charter currently
does not address this subject.

Item 4. LSP Recovery

   Vishal Sharma ([email-masked])
   I would like to suggest adding the following as a milestone:

   Produce specifications for protocols and procedures that support
   LSP recovery

A milestone has been added for this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) Charter

Problem Statement:

Label switching in conjunction with network layer routing has emerged
as an important new technology.  It is actively being applied to
applications such as traffic engineering and virtual private networks.
Among the problems this technology is expected to address are the
following:

1.  Greater flexibility in delivering routing services

Using labels to identify particular traffic which are to receive
special services, e.g. QoS.

Using labels to provide forwarding along an explicit path different
from the one constructed by destination-based forwarding.

2.  Scalability of network layer routing

Using labels as a means to aggregate forwarding information, while
working in the presence of routing hierarchies.

3.  Simplify integration of routers with cell switching based
technologies

a) making cell switches behave as peers to routers (thus reducing
the number of routing peers that a  router has to maintain),

b) by making information about physical topology available to
Network Layer routing procedures, and

c) by employing common addressing, routing, and management
procedures.

4.  Simplify integration of routers with optical cross-connect based
technologies

a) making optical cross connects behave as peers to routers (thus
reducing the number of routing peers that a router has to maintain),

b) by making information about physical topology available to
Network Layer routing procedures, and

c) by employing common addressing, routing, and management
procedures.

High Level Requirements

1.  The solution should be general with respect to data link
technologies. Specific optimizations for particular media will be
considered.

2.  The solution must be compatible with existing internetwork
technologies and routing protocols.

3.  The solution should support a wide range of forwarding
granularities associated with a given label, from a single
application flow to a group of topologically related destinations.

4.  The solution should support operations, administration, and
maintenance facilities at least as extensive as those supported in
IP networks.

5.  The solution should provide stable routing.  The protocols defined
by MPLS must provide protocol mechanism(s) to either prevent the
formation of loops and/or contain the amount of (networking) resources
that could be consumed due to the presence of such loops.

6.  The solution should be very scalable.  Scalability issues will be
considered and analyzed.

Charter Statement:

The working group is responsible for standardizing a base technology
for using label switching in conjunction with network layer routing
and for the implementation of that technology over various link level
technologies, which may include Packet-over-Sonet, Frame Relay, ATM,
Ethernet (all forms, such as Gigabit Ethernet, etc.), Token Ring,...

This includes procedures and protocols for the distribution of labels
between routers, encapsulations, multicast considerations, and the use
of labels to support higher layer resource reservation and QoS
mechanisms.

The working group will also specify a control plane for optical cross
connects.  In this environment specific wave lengths or Lambdas are
used instead of labels.

Objectives:

1.  Specify standard protocol(s) for maintenance and distribution of
label binding information to support unicast destination-based
routing.

2.  Specify standard protocol(s) for maintenance and distribution of
label binding information to support multicast routing.

3.  Specify standard protocol(s) for maintenance and distribution of
label binding information to support hierarchy of routing knowledge
(e.g., complete segregation of intra and inter-domain routing).

4.  Specify standard protocol(s) for maintenance and distribution of
label binding information to support explicit paths in support of
applications such as Traffic Engineering.

5.  Specify standard protocols and procedures to support the fast
recovery of Label Switched Paths.

6.  Specify extensions to the protocols and procedures used for
signaling explicit routes and to effect fast recovery of LSPs
for use in Optical Cross Connects.  

7.  Specify standard procedures of carrying label information over
various link level technologies including ATM.

8.  Define the support of Differentiated and Integrated Services,
including aggregated QoS, in an MPLS environment.

9.  Specify standard protocols and procedures to support operations,
administration, and maintenance facilities.

Coordination:

The working group will coordinate its activities with other working
groups as appropriate.  For specific technologies, the WG will
cooperate with the appropriate standards bodies such as OIF, ITU-T, 
ANSI, ODSI etc. 

Goals and Milestones:

Mar 00 - Produce a document which defines support of Differentiated
         Services (Diff-Serv) over Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
         (MPLS) networks (Standards Track).

Aug 00 - Produce a document which defines operation with RSVP for 
         unicast destinations. (Standards Track).

Aug 00 - Produce specifications for protocols and procedures that support
         fault recovery in an MPLS environment

Dec 00 - Produce specifications for a MPLS control plane for optical 
         cross-connects (Standards Track).

---

From: "Fiffi Hellstrand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:47:21 +0100

Hi,

The recovery framework draft uses the term "MPLS-based recovery" instead
of LSP recovery to reflect that more than just LSPs can be recovered
using MPLS mechanisms. The recovery path is an LSP but  may protect all
types of paths, not only LSPs. Maybe it is a good idea to reflect that
in the charter as well.

Objective #5 could read
"Specify standard protocols and procedures to support fast MPLS based
recovery"

and objective 6 may be changed as well. Any objections?

Regards,

Fiffi

> for use in Optical Cross Connects.

Fiffi Hellstrand
Nortel Networks
Routing Architecture Lab
S:t Eriksgatan 115 A, PO Box 6701
113 85 Stockholm, Sweden
phone: +46 8 5088-3687, mobile +46 70 559-3687
e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "Philip Matthews" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:26:41 -0500

Given that you decided not to say anything
explicit about coordination of work between
the TE and MPLS WGs, how to you (as co-chair)
plan to avoid the type of problems that occurred
in Washington?

- Philip

---

From: Bala Rajagopalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:04:47 -0500

> c) by employing common addressing, routing, and management

I'm not sure what MPLS has got to do with all this. (3)  and (4) seem to
be routing problems
that perhaps OSPF etc. can deal with. Could you clarify this?

> connects.  In this environment specific wave lengths or Lambdas are

I believe you need specific requirements for this. From your other mail
is it appropriate to
assume that a WG like ip-over-optical (if formed) will supply this?

--

Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: [email-masked]