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]