A new IETF working group has been formed in the Routing Area. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (teas) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Chairs: Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com> Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Assigned Area Director: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mailing list Address: teas@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/ Charter: The Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working Group is responsible for defining MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering architecture, standardizing the RSVP-TE signaling protocol, and identifying required related control-protocol functions, i.e., routing and path computation element functions. Traffic Engineering (TE) is the term used to refer to techniques that enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are treated within their networks. TE is applied to packet networks via MPLS TE tunnels and LSPs. The MPLS-TE control plane was generalized to additionally support non-packet technologies via GMPLS. RSVP-TE is the signaling protocol used for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS. The TEAS WG is responsible for: a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability across packet and non-packet networks. This includes both networks that include the use of PCE and those that do not. The PCE architecture itself is out of the WG scope. b) Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters (measurement and/or service attributes) for describing links and tunnels/paths required for traffic engineering (and related routing, signaling and path computation). These will be developed in conjunction with requests and requirements from other WGs to ensure overall usefulness. c) Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and for path computation (PCE) to provide general enablers of traffic-engineering systems that also use RSVP-TE. Protocol formats and procedures that embody these extensions will be done in coordination with the WGs supervising those protocols. d) Functional specification of generic (i.e., not data plane technology-specific) extensions for RSVP-TE, and the associated protocol formats and procedures that embody these extensions. e) Definition of control plane mechanisms and extensions to allow the setup and maintenance of TE paths and TE tunnels that span multiple domains and/or switching technologies, where a domain may be an IGP area, an Autonomous System, or any other region of topological visibility. f) Definition and extension of management and security techniques for RSVP-TE signaling. This includes configuring and monitoring RSVP-TE as well as mechanisms used to configure, control, and report OAM within TE networks. YANG and MIB modules may be considered. The TEAS working group is chartered to deliver the following: 1. Definition of additional abstract service, link, and path properties such as jitter, delay, and diversity. Extensions to IGPs to advertise these properties, and extensions to RSVP-TE to request and to accumulate these properties. Work with PCE WG to include these properties in computation requests. 2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE information between interconnected TE domains/layers. 3. Specification and protocol extensions for a GMPLS External Network-to-Network Interface (E-NNI), i.e., multi-domain GMPLS support. 4. Protocol mechanisms to signal associated LSPs in particular with different source nodes. 5. Requirements and protocol extensions for additional protection mechanisms including end-point protection, protection of P2MP LSPs, and inter-domain protection. 6. YANG models for a Traffic Engineering Database in coordination with working groups working on YANG models for network topology and for technology-specific network attributes. Requirements may be documented in stand-alone RFCs, may be folded into architecture or solutions RFCs, may be recorded on a wiki, or may be documented in an Internet-Draft that is not progressed to RFC. The TEAS WG will coordinate with the following working groups: - With the MPLS WG to maintain and extend MPLS-TE protocol mechanisms and to determine whether they should be generalized. - With the CCAMP WG to maintain and extend non-packet, data plane technology-specific TE protocol mechanisms and to determine whether they should be generalized. - With the OSPF and ISIS WGs to maintain or extend TE routing mechanisms for MPLS-TE and GMPLS. - With the PCE WG on uses of a PCE in the traffic-engineering architecture, on PCE extensions per the above, and on RSVP-TE extensions to support PCE WG identified requirements. - With the IDR WG on the use of BGP-LS in TE environments. In doing this work, the WG will cooperate with external SDOs (such as the ITU-T and the IEEE 802.1) as necessary. Milestones: TBD
