66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Requirements for delivering MPLS services Over L3VPN

draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-01.txt

Kenji Kumaki KDDI, Editor

Raymond Zhang BT infonet

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Overview Overview

• Motivation– Provide robust MPLS services to customers

• Can offer end-to-end paths using LDP– Can’t offer end-to-end paths using RSVP extensions

• Offer CE-to-CE MPLS TE LSPs between customer sites– Guarantee bandwidth, Provide fast protection, diversely

routed path ……

– Provide all of the benefits of a L3VPN• Offer vrf instance per customer to avoid security issues

– Customers can not forward packets through the service provider’s general forwarding instance.

– They can not join the service provider’s routing domain and MPLS signaling domain.

• Assign address space that is unique only to a VPN

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Overview (cont.)Overview (cont.)

• This draft is to:– Clarify issues for e2e MPLS TE LSP over

BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs– Describe reference models for e2e MPLS TE LSP

over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs – Describe specific requirements for e2e MPLS TE

LSP over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Reference modelReference model

Service Provider’s network

Customer’s or

another SP’s network

Customer’s or

another SP’s network

P-TE LSPs

Vrf instances

C-TE LSPs

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Summary of RequirementsSummary of Requirements

• Establish C-TE LSPs over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN (i.e. vrf instance)

• Offer scalable and robust C-TE LSPs over vrf instance• Provide these LSPs in carrier’s carrier environments as well

as basic BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments• Detailed requirements [See in section 5.]

– FRR support– Admission control support– Policy control support– Optimal path support– DS-TE support– MPLS OAM support– etc

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Major Changes from -00

• Added new co-author, Raymond Zhang• Section 3

– Clarified problem statement

• Section 4– Changed terminology

• C-TE LSP

• P-TE LSP

• Section 5– Added sub-section “Admission control support on P-TE LSP

head-ends”

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Remaining IssuesRemaining Issues

• Any other specific requirements?

66th IETF Montreal July 2006

Next ActionsNext Actions

• Need more comments and feedback from WG• Request WG to accept this I-D as a WG document