Re: Microwave Topology - 2020-01-09

Hi all,

Notes from today’s meeting.
This is based on my own understanding/interpretation of our discussion. Please add any missing or incorrect information.

Use case 2: Provisioning of bridged Ethernet services

  *   Based on ETSI microwave plug-test use cases
  *   In the plug-test, the underlay concept is used to describe the relationship between the Ethernet layer and the microwave layer, whereas the supporting link is the approach used in the draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang.
     *   There is a need to clarify which approach is the correct/best
  *   Path computation is performed on the Ethernet layer and uses only information provided by that layer
  *   The microwave layer need to provide information that might be of interest for path computation, such as bandwidth and availability.
  *   How that microwave information can be made available to the Ethernet layer (and thereby the PCE) remains to be understood
     *   If there is a corresponding attribute in the Ethernet topology, then the domain controller can update that attribute based on information in the supporting microwave layer
     *   If there is no corresponding attribute in the Ethernet topology, then changes have to be done to the Ethernet topology model and/or the functionality of the PCE. But this is outside the scope of this work.

There was a discussion about possible future extensions:

  *   Point-to-multipoint implementations
     *   Is there any implementations within the industry today that we can refer to?
     *   Is the connectivity managed on the radio link layer or on higher layers, e.g. on the Ethernet layers as in implementations 10-15 years ago?
  *   IAB – Integrated Access Backhaul
     *   A new protocol (layer?), BAP, is introduced to manage the connectivity in a multi-hop IAB network.
     *   Does this really change the previous assumption that microwave is only a link-by-link topology and not a  network topology?
     *   Is IAB within the scope of our work?

Next step
A suggestion:

-          I think there are communalities in the findings from the two use cases. Let’s summarize them in a good way.

-          Based on that, let’s start to draw conclusions and define requirements for what a microwave topology model need to support.

Regards
JonasA


From: CCAMP <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jonas Ahlberg
Sent: den 19 december 2019 13:16
To: CCAMP Working Group <[email protected]>; ccamp <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Microwave Topology - 2019-12-19

Hi all,

Some notes from the meeting today.

We had a short discussion about the IP/MPLS (TE) L3VPN use case. The detailed information provided by Stephen need to be further explained/discussed at our next meeting.
We agreed with the conclusion that TE information in L1 microwave topology is not necessary for the proper functioning of a PCE, but we also need to consider other aspects before we decide how to proceed.

  *   We need to understand and draw conclusions also from the remaining two use cases
  *   Other drafts augmenting te-topology (e.g. MPLS-TP, OTN and WSON) are network technologies in that sense that paths/tunnels can be created using links and connectivity matrices from within that single te-topology. Microwave is not a network topology in that sense. It is only a “link-by-link topology” since paths/tunnels can only be created on higher layer topologies, e.g. TDM and Ethernet. How should this affect the choice of basis for a microwave topology model?
  *   How to take care of future use cases that might require te-information? Does it really impact the choice today?
  *   …


Next meeting is planned for Thursday January 9, 11-12 CET.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

/JonasA

-----Original Appointment-----
From: CCAMP Working Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: den 3 oktober 2019 12:00
To: CCAMP Working Group; ccamp
Subject: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Microwave topology
When: Occurs every torsdag effective 2019-11-14 until 2020-06-04 from 05:00 to 06:00 (UTC+01:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna.
Where: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf



CCAMP Working Group changed the Webex meeting information.


When it's time, join the Webex meeting here.


Meeting number (access code): 647 343 270

Meeting password: D7dhCJpZ


Occurs every Thursday effective Thursday, November 14, 2019 until Thursday, June 4, 2020 from 5:00 AM to 6:00 AM, (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
5:00 am  |  (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)  |  1 hr



Join meeting<https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=ma65a6a5186962890ec535e711ec3d3f9>



Join by phone
Tap to call in from a mobile device (attendees only)
1-650-479-3208<tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*647343270%23%23*01*> Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
1-877-668-4493<tel:1-877-668-4493,,*01*647343270%23%23*01*> Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
Global call-in numbers<https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/globalcallin.php?MTID=m57c83575d64804b110f94f798d438720>  |  Toll-free calling restrictions<https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf>



Need help? Go to http://help.webex.com

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp