CCAMP Working Group Richard Rabbat (Fujitsu) Internet Draft Vishal Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) Expires: April 2005 Takeo Hamada (Fujitsu) October 2004 Carrier Survey Results on GMPLS-based Shared-Mesh Transport Restoration Strategies draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract Optical transport networks operated using a GMPLS-based control plane enable todays network operators to offer valuable new services. With the completion of a number of GMPLS signaling and routing standards and the availability of products implementing them, providers are now looking at ways to enable additional features, such as shared-mesh restoration. These can be key to efficient network operation while providing strict performance guarantees. In that context, several areas of work still need to be addressed within the CCAMP WG of the IETF to develop interoperable, standards-based solutions that carriers can embrace. Towards that end, this document presents the results of a serious attempt to systematically gather and collate carrier inputs on strategies for shared-mesh restoration and the associated issues. The survey results are presented in aggregate form to provide an overview Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 1] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 of carrier thinking, while retaining specific carrier response confidentiality. The goal is to highlight areas of carrier concerns, and identify specific work items to focus on and facilitate further discussion on them. This is to enable the CCAMP WG to pursue ongoing and further work in this area that is focused towards addressing the identified carrier requirements. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................2 2. Terminology..................................................3 3. Survey Overview and Methodology..............................3 4. Acknowledgements.............................................4 5. Survey Results...............................................4 5.1 Deployment of GMPLS-based Control Plane......................4 5.2 Status of GMPLS-based Control Plane Implementation...........5 5.3 Key Concerns with a GMPLS-based Control Plane................5 5.4 Plans for Implementing Shared-Mesh Restoration...............6 5.5 Attributes Key to the Adoption of Shared-Mesh Restoration....6 5.6 Recovery Speed Required......................................7 5.7 Value of Recovery Speed for Key Applications.................7 5.8 View on Current Signaling-based Solutions....................8 6. Conclusions..................................................9 7. Appendix A: Sample Survey Format.............................9 8. Appendix B: Anonymized Carrier Responses....................12 8.1 Respondent #1...............................................12 8.2 Respondent #2...............................................15 8.3 Respondent #3...............................................18 8.4 Respondent #4...............................................21 8.5 Respondent #5...............................................24 8.6 Respondent #6...............................................27 8.7 Respondent #7...............................................30 9. References..................................................33 9.1 Normative References........................................33 9.2 Informative References......................................34 10. Authors' Addresses..........................................34 11. Intellectual Property Considerations........................36 11.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement..............................36 12. Full Copyright Statement....................................36 1. Introduction The CCAMP WG has recently completed (or nearly completed) a series of GMPLS proposed standards, ranging from signaling and routing protocol specifications for the IP-control of non-packet networks (specifically, optical transport networks)(e.g. [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]) Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 2] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 to the development of protection and restoration terminology, analysis, and functional documents (e.g. [8],[9],[10]). These documents have provided a good foundation for further work in the area, especially given that carriers are beginning now to think seriously about how they will use the GMPLS control plane to enable new and/or advanced services within their networks. This will provide efficiencies for carriers, while providing customers with the same level of service as provided today by less efficient (or more expensive) means. One key area that carriers have looked at is shared mesh restoration and its associated issues. This subject while providing opportunities for resource efficiency also requires carriers to be vigilant about how they will meet various performance guarantees. This document presents the collated results from a survey of several major international carriers from the US, Europe and Japan, conducted over the last 5 months. The goal of the survey was to systematically collect carrier inputs in key areas related to control plane operation and shared mesh restoration, and highlight areas for further work by the CCAMP WG. The rest of the document details various aspects of this survey. The remainder of the document is organized as follows. In Section 3, we provide a brief overview of the survey and its methodology, while in Section 5, we present the aggregated results of the survey. We conclude in Section 6. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2]. 3. Survey Overview and Methodology The survey consisted of nine questions directed at various aspects of shared mesh restoration in carrier transport networks, and a sample is shown in Section 7. It was circulated to operations and network planning groups at several major international carriers, and the received responses collated into six major tables that are presented in Section 5. The collation was done simply to preserve carrier anonymity. Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 3] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 The definition of shared mesh restoration as used in this survey is the following. In such networks, the working paths are protected by shared protection resources. As an example, a protection path can protect two working paths and be used to restore traffic when either of the working wavelengths fails. In other cases of shared-mesh restoration, a carrier allows extra-traffic between endpoints other than the source-destination of a protection path. Thus a protection path cannot be cross-connected until after the specific failure has occurred. 4. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the carriers that responded to this survey, some who wished to remain anonymous. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the participation in alphabetical order of British Telecom, Global Crossing, Japan Telecom, and NTT Communications. We would also like to ask carriers whom we did not have the opportunity to contact, to participate in this survey so that their inputs can be included in subsequent versions of this document. 5. Survey Results In this section, we present the aggregated results from the carrier survey, under six headings. Please note that throughout, the value 5 represents the most critical concern/attribute, while 1 represents the least important concern/attribute. 5.1 Deployment of GMPLS-based Control Plane This question was designed to ascertain the deployment status of a GMPLS-based control plane in the networks of the carriers surveyed. Table I: Carriers' plans for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane a. Already deployed it [ 1] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. Within 2-3 years [ 3] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 4] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ 3] 5.2 Status of GMPLS-based Control Plane Implementation This question sought to ascertain the current implementation status of a GMPLS-based control plane in the network of the provider's surveyed. Table II: Implementation status of a GMPLS control plane a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [ 4] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] f. Not Implemented [ 2] g. Tested in vendor labs. only [ 1] 5.3 Key Concerns with a GMPLS-based Control Plane This question sought to get an understanding of some of the areas in which carriers may have concerns when thinking of deploying a GMPLS- based control plane. These included the reliability of the control plane (its software and implementation), the speed with which one could communicate over the control plane, the capability of the control plane to integrate with existing NMSs, and the carrier view of the maturity of the vendor offering. Table III. Carrier concerns about an IP-based control plane, such as GMPLS. Number Responding 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ 1] [ 2] [ 1] [ 3] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 5] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 b. Speed of communication [ ] [ 2] [ 3] [ 2] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ 1] [ ] [ 2] [ ] [ 4] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 4] [ 3] 5.4 Plans for Implementing Shared-Mesh Restoration The goal here was to evaluate the timeframes in which carriers were looking to implement shared mesh restoration in their transport networks. The questions were structured in the context of a GMPLS- based control plane, although some carriers have responded with an affirmative to this question, even when their plans to implement a GMPLS-based control plane are further in the future. This would impact the time available to develop advanced features of the control plane within CCAMP, and also provide insight into why (or why not) the carriers would adopt a GMPLS-based control plane (as seen later). It is evident from Table II, that there are plans to implement shared mesh restoration in carrier networks in the next 2-3 years. Table IV. Plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in the optical transport network Number Responding a. Already implemented [ 1] b. Within 1 year [ 1] c. Within 2-3 years [ 2] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ 3] 5.5 Attributes Key to the Adoption of Shared-Mesh Restoration This question was designed simply to assess which attributes of shared mesh restoration were key to a carrier adopting/implementing it. Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 6] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 Table V. Importance of key attributes in adopting shared-mesh restoration Number Responding 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ 2] [ ] [ 5] b. Bandwidth savings [ 1] [ ] [ 3] [ 2] [ 1] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ 3] [ 2] [ 2] multiple fiber cuts 5.6 Recovery Speed Required This question was designed to assess the ranges of recovery speeds carriers deemed appropriate. Table VI. Speed of recovery required Number Responding a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ 4] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms - 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ 2]. Please specify: 50 to 200ms Carrier 1 response: For some applications, 50ms is required. For others a business case can be made for longer duration restorals. Carrier 2 response: Closer the duct the faster in general, closer the applications the slower in general. 5.7 Value of Recovery Speed for Key Applications In shared mesh restoration and other restoration scenarios, the speed of recovery is often an important parameter. The question below was designed to assess how important carriers thought recovery speed was for the different types of traffic carried on their networks. As Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 7] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 might be expected, TDM voice, VoIP, VoD, and business traffic were the primary applications judged to require quick recovery speeds. Table VII. Importance of recovery speed for key applications Number Responding 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 1] [ 5] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 5] [ 1] c. Web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ 1] [ 1] [ 3] [ 1] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 3] [ 3] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 3] [ 3] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ 1] [ 2] [ 3] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ 2] [ 2] [ 1] [ ] No response [1] 5.8 View on Current Signaling-based Solutions A number of mechanisms may be used to perform notification of faults and subsequent recovery actions. The key is to provide scalable ways of disseminating failure information in the network. The question below was designed to assess carrier thinking in this area. As can be seen from Table VI, carriers surveyed uniformly agree that hard bounds on recovery time are very important, and that some aspects of signaling such as scalability and potential signaling storms are areas of concern. Table VIII. Level of concern in some key areas for a shared mesh restoration scheme using signaling for notification of each failed LSP Number Responding 1 2 3 4 5 Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 8] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ 1] [ 1] [ 3] [ 2] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 2] [ 5] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 2] [ 5] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 3] [ 4] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ 1] [ 4] [ 2] 6. Conclusions This draft represents survey results from several major carriers in Europe, North America and Japan. The authors collected information related to shared mesh restoration, its advantages and the requirements carriers have for its adoption. 7. Appendix A: Sample Survey Format Carrier Survey about Optical Transport Network ---------------------------------------------- 1. Please provide us with your job title ---------------------------------------- 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. Within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 9] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [ ] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Note: For the purposes of this survey, we define transport networks that implement shared-mesh restoration as follows. In such networks, the working paths are protected by shared protection resources. As an example, a protection path can protect two working paths and be used to restore traffic when either of the working wavelengths fails. In other cases of shared-mesh restoration, a carrier allows extra- traffic between endpoints other than the source-destination of a protection path. Thus a protection path cannot be cross-connected until after the specific failure has occurred. 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 10] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 c. Within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ ] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1:recovery speed is not important, 5:recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 11] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 8. Appendix B: Anonymized Carrier Responses In this section, we present, in random order, the anonymized responses of the respondents to the survey. 8.1 Respondent #1 1. Please provide us with your job title Sr. Manager, Optical and Data Networking Technology 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 12] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [X] 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [X] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 13] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [X ] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ ] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [X ]. Please specify: It depends. For some applications, 50ms is required. For others a business case can be made for longer duration restorals. 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 14] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X ] 8.2 Respondent #2 1. Please provide us with your job title Sr.Architect__________________ 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 15] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ X ] 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [ ] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] Not testing X 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 16] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ X ] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ X ] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 17] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] 8.3 Respondent #3 1. Please provide us with your job title __________________________________________________________________ 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [X] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 18] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [X] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (1 is most important concern, 5 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] d. Maturity of vendor offering [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [X] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 19] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [X] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] video-on-demand Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 20] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 8.4 Respondent #4 1. Please provide us with your job title __________________________________________________________________ 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 21] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [X] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (1 is most important concern, 5 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [X] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 22] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [X] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 23] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 8.5 Respondent #5 1. Please provide us with your job title __________________________________________________________________ 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [X] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 24] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [X] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [X] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 25] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [X] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 26] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 8.6 Respondent #6 1. Please provide us with your job title __________________________________________________________________ 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ X ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 27] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] Tested in vendor labs, but not proceeded further. 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] [ ] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ X ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [ ] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 28] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. Bandwidth savings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ ] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ X ]. Please specify: 50 to 200 ms__________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 29] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] 8.7 Respondent #7 1. Please provide us with your job title CTO office, MPLS and GMPLS technology 2. What is your plan for implementing a GMPLS-based control plane? a. Already deployed it [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [Y] 3. What is the status of implementation of a GMPLS control plane in your network today? Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 30] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 a. Have it in the lab. (trials/testing) [ ] b. Testing it in a research network [ ] c. Have tested it, and proceeding to implementation [ ] d. Have it in parts of our production network [ ] e. Full fledged implementation in the network [ ] N/A 4. Please rank your concerns about an IP-based control plane such as GMPLS. (5 is most important concern, 1 is least important concern) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Reliability [ ] [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] b. Speed of communication [ ] [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] c. Integration with NMS [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [Y] d. Maturity of vendor offering [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [Y] 5. What are you plans for implementing shared-mesh restoration in your optical transport network? a. Already implemented [ ] b. Within 1 year [ ] c. within 2-3 years [ ] d. In 3+ years [ ] e. Have no current plans to implement it [Y] 6. To adopt shared mesh protection, please rank the importance (from 1 to 5) of each of the following attributes. (1 is least important, 5 is most important) 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of recovery [ ] [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 31] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 b. Bandwidth savings [Y] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] from using sharing c. Ability to deal with [ ] [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] multiple fiber cuts 7. What speed of recovery do you need? Response: Depends on layer network considered *and* nature of defect....closer the duct the faster in general, closer the applications the slower in gerenal. a. Does not matter [ ] b. 50 milliseconds [ ] c. 200 milliseconds [ ] d. 200 ms- 1 second [ ] e. 1 second-1 minute [ ] f. Other [ ]. Please specify: ____________ 8. For each of the following services, how important do you believe recovery speed to be? (1: recovery speed is not important, 5: recovery speed is critical) Response: This is actually not a good question. When you are down at optics you don't know what client layers/applications are supported. So this question cannot be sensibly answered *from the perspective of SDH/OTN*. Close to applications restoration faster than say 1-2s would be silly IMO, ie false triggering on self-healing error events would happen. 1 2 3 4 5 a. TDM Voice [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. VPN Traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] c. web, peer-to-peer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] d. VoIP [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] e. Video conferencing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 32] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 video-on-demand f. Business traffic such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] SAP, network storage g. Other best-effort traffic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Please specify: ___________ ___________________________ 9. For a shared mesh restoration scheme that used signaling for notification of each failed LSP, how concerned are you in each of the following areas? (1: I have no concern, 5: I have critical concerns) Response: Answers are best guesses for any type of prot-sw 1 2 3 4 5 a. Speed of notification [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Network stability [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [Y] c. Signaling storms such as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [Y] when a large # of lambdas fail at the same time due to a single fiber cut d. Scalability of signaling [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [Y] e. Hard bounds on recovery time [ ] [ ] [Y] [ ] [ ] 9. References 9.1 Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, IETF RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," BCP 14, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] L. Berger (Ed.), "Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching: Signaling Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 2003. [4] P. Ashwood-Smith, L. Berger (Eds.), "Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 33] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 Distribution Label Distribution Protocol Extensions," RFC 3472, January 2003. [5] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering Extensions," RFC 3473, January 2003. [6] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter (Eds.), "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching," Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt, October 2003. [7] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter (Eds.), "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching," Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-gmpls-extensions- 12.txt, October 2003. 9.2 Informative References [8] E. Mannie, D. Papadimitriou (Eds.), "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching," Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp- gmpls-recovery-terminology-04.txt, April 2004. [9] E. Mannie, D. Papadimitriou (Eds.), "Analysis of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching based Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Schemes," Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-03.txt, April 2004. [10] J. P. Lang, B. Rajagopalan (Eds.), "Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching Recovery Functional Specification," Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- functional-02.txt, April 2004. 10. Authors' Addresses Richard Rabbat Vishal Sharma Fujitsu Labs of America, Inc. Metanoia, Inc. 1240 East Arques Ave, MS 345 888 Villa St, Suite 200B Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Mountain View, CA 94041 United States of America United States of America Phone: +1-408-530-4537 Phone: +1-650-641-0082 Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu Email: v.sharma@ieee.org Takeo Hamada Fujitsu Labs of America, Inc. Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 34] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 1240 East Arques Ave, MS 345 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 United States of America Phone: +1-408-530-4575 Email: thamada@fla.fujitsu.com Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 35] draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01 October 2004 11. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. 11.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 12. Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights." "This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE Of THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Expires ¡ April 2005 [Page 36]