idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 2003) is 7437 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'GMPLS-SIG' is mentioned on line 98, but not defined -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'GMPLS-RTG' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LMP' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LMP-SDH' Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group A. Fredette, Editor 2 Internet Draft (Hatteras Networks) 3 Category: Standards Track 4 Expiration Date: June 2004 J. Lang, Editor 5 (Rincon Networks) 7 December 2003 9 Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division 10 Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 17 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 25 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 26 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as 27 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 Abstract 37 The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is defined to manage traffic 38 engineering (TE) links. In its present form, LMP focuses on peer 39 nodes; i.e., nodes that peer in signaling and/or routing. In this 40 document we propose extensions to LMP to allow it to be used between 41 a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS). These 42 extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface 43 Requirements" described in a companion document. 45 [Editor's note: "Changes from previous version" notes can be removed 46 prior to publication as an RFC.] 48 Changes from previous version: 50 o Modified the IANA Considerations section as a result of IESG 51 review. 53 1. Introduction 55 Networks are being developed with routers, switches, optical cross- 56 connects (OXCs), dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) 57 optical line systems (OLSs), and add-drop multiplexors (ADMs) that 58 use a common control plane [e.g., Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)] to 59 dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability 60 using protection and restoration techniques. 62 The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is being developed as part of the 63 GMPLS protocol suite to manage traffic engineering (TE) links [LMP]. 64 In its present form, LMP focuses on peer nodes; i.e., nodes that 65 peer in signaling and/or routing (e.g., OXC-to-OXC, as illustrated 66 in Figure 1). In this document, extensions to LMP to allow it to be 67 used between a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS) 68 are proposed. These extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical 69 Link Interface Requirements" described in [OLI]. It is assumed that 70 the reader is familiar with LMP as defined in [LMP]. 72 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ 73 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 74 | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 | 75 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 76 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ 77 ^ ^ 78 | | 79 +---------------------LMP---------------------+ 81 Figure 1: LMP Model 83 Consider two peer nodes (e.g., two OXCs) interconnected by a 84 wavelength-multiplexed link; i.e., a DWDM optical link (see Figure 1 85 above). Information about the configuration of this link and its 86 current state is known by the two OLSs (OLS1 and OLS2), and allowing 87 them to communicate this information to the corresponding peer nodes 88 (OXC1 and OXC2) via LMP can improve network usability by reducing 89 required manual configuration and by enhancing fault detection and 90 recovery. 92 Information about the state of LSPs using the DWDM optical link is 93 known by the peer nodes (OXC1 and OXC2), and allowing them to 94 communicate this information to the corresponding OLSs (OLS1 and 95 OLS2) is useful for alarm management and link monitoring. Alarm 96 management is important because the administrative state of an LSP, 97 known to the peer nodes (e.g., via the Admin Status object of GMPLS 98 signaling [GMPLS-SIG]) can be used to suppress spurious alarm 99 reporting from the OLSs. 101 The model for extending LMP to OLSs is shown in Figure 2. 103 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ 104 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 105 | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 | 106 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 107 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ 108 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 109 | | | | | | 110 | +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ | 111 | | 112 +----------------------LMP-----------------------+ 114 Figure 2: Extended LMP Model 116 In this model, a peer node may have LMP sessions with adjacent OLSs 117 as well as adjacent peer nodes. In Figure 2, for example, the OXC1- 118 OXC2 LMP session can be used to build traffic-engineering (TE) links 119 for GMPLS signaling and routing, as described in [LMP]. The OXC1- 120 OLS1 and the OXC2-OLS2 LMP sessions are used to exchange information 121 about the configuration of the DWDM optical link and its current 122 state and information about the state of LSPs using that link. 124 The latter type of LMP sessions is discussed in this document. It is 125 important to note that a peer node may have LMP sessions with one or 126 more OLSs and an OLS may have LMP sessions with one or more peer 127 nodes. 129 Although there are many similarities between an LMP session between 130 two peer nodes and an LMP session between a peer node and an OLS, 131 there are some differences as well. The former type of LMP session 132 is used to provide the basis for GMPLS signaling and routing. The 133 latter type of LMP session is used to augment knowledge about the 134 links between peer nodes. 136 A peer node maintains its peer node - OLS LMP sessions and its peer 137 node - peer node LMP sessions independently. This means that it MUST 138 be possible for LMP sessions to come up in any order. In particular, 139 it MUST be possible for a peer node - peer node LMP session to come 140 up in the absence of any peer node - OLS LMP sessions and vice 141 versa. 143 1.1. Terminology 145 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 146 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 147 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 149 The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [LMP]. 151 DWDM: Dense wavelength division multiplexor 153 OLS: Optical line system 155 Opaque: 157 A device is called X-opaque if it examines or modifies the X 158 aspect of the signal while forwarding an incoming signal from 159 input to output. 161 OXC: Optical cross-connect 163 Transparent: 165 As defined in [LMP], a device is called X-transparent if it 166 forwards incoming signals from input to output without examining 167 or modifying the X aspect of the signal. For example, a Frame 168 Relay switch is network-layer transparent; an all-optical switch 169 is electrically transparent. 171 1.2. Scope of LMP-WDM Protocol 173 This document focuses on extensions required for use with opaque 174 OLSs. In particular, this document is intended for use with OLSs 175 having SONET, SDH, and Ethernet user ports. 177 At the time of this writing, work is ongoing in the area of fully 178 transparent wavelength routing; however, it is premature to identify 179 the necessary information to be exchanged between a peer node and an 180 OLS in this context. Nevertheless, the protocol described in this 181 document provides the necessary framework in which to exchange 182 whatever additional information is deemed appropriate. 184 2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems 186 LMP currently consists of four main procedures, of which the first 187 two are mandatory and the last two are optional: 189 1. Control channel management 190 2. Link property correlation 191 3. Link verification 192 4. Fault management 194 All four functions are supported in LMP-WDM. 196 2.1. Control Channel Management 198 As in [LMP], we do not specify the exact implementation of the 199 control channel; it could be, for example, a separate wavelength, 200 fiber, Ethernet link, an IP tunnel routed over a separate management 201 network, a multi-hop IP network, or the overhead bytes of a data 202 link. 204 The control channel management for a peer node - OLS link is the 205 same as for a peer node - peer node link, as described in [LMP]. 207 To distinguish between a peer node - OLS LMP session from a peer 208 node - peer node LMP session, a new LMP-WDM CONFIG object is defined 209 (C-Type = TBA by IANA). The format of the CONFIG object is as 210 follows: 212 Class = 6. 214 o C-Type = TBA, LMP-WDM_CONFIG 216 0 1 2 3 217 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 |W|O| (Reserved) | 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 224 WDM: 1 bit 226 This bit indicates support for the LMP-WDM extensions defined 227 in this draft. 229 OLS: 1 bit 231 If set, this bit indicates that the sender is an optical line 232 system (OLS). If clear, this bit indicates that the sender is a 233 peer node. 235 The LMP-WDM extensions are designed for peer node - OLS LMP 236 sessions. The OLS bit allows a node to identify itself as an OLS or 237 a peer node. This is used to detect misconfiguration of a peer node 238 -OLS LMP session between two peer nodes or a peer node - peer node 239 LMP session between a peer node and an OLS. 241 If the node does not support the LMP-WDM extensions, it MUST reply 242 to the Config message with a ConfigNack message. 244 If a peer node that is configured to run LMP-WDM receives a Config 245 message with the OLS bit clear in LMP-WDM_CONFIG Object, it MUST 246 reply to the Config message with a ConfigNack message. 248 2.2. Link Verification 250 The Test procedure used with OLSs is the same as described in [LMP]. 251 The VerifyTransportMechanism (included in the BeginVerify and 252 BeginVerifyAck messages) is used to allow nodes to negotiate a link 253 verification method and is essential for line systems that have 254 access to overhead bytes rather than the payload. The VerifyId 255 (provided by the remote node in the BeginVerifyAck message, and used 256 in all subsequent Test messages) is used to differentiate Test 257 messages from different LMP Link Verification procedures. In 258 addition to the Test procedure described in [LMP], the trace 259 monitoring function of [LMP-SDH] may be used for link verification 260 when the OLS user ports are SONET or SDH. 262 In a combined LMP and LMP-WDM context, there is an interplay between 263 the data links being managed by peer node - peer node LMP sessions 264 and peer node - OLS LMP sessions. For example, in Figure 2, the 265 OXC1-OLS1 LMP session manages the data links between OXC1 and OLS1, 266 and the OXC2-OLS2 LMP session manages the data links between OXC2 267 and OLS2. However, the OXC1-OXC2 LMP session manages the data links 268 between OXC1 and OXC2, which are actually a concatenation of the 269 data links between OXC1 and OLS1, the DWDM span between OLS1 and 270 OLS2, and the data links between OXC2 and OLS2, and it is these 271 concatenated links which comprise the TE links which are advertised 272 in the GMPLS TE link state database. 274 The implication of this is that when the data links between OXC1 and 275 OXC2 are being verified, using the LMP link verification procedure, 276 OLS1 and OLS2 need to make themselves transparent with respect to 277 these concatenated data links. The coordination of verification of 278 OXC1-OLS1 and OXC2-OLS2 data links to ensure this transparency is 279 the responsibility of the peer nodes, OXC1 and OXC2. 281 It is also necessary for these peer nodes to understand the mappings 282 between the data links of the peer node - OLS LMP session and the 283 concatenated data links of the peer node - peer node LMP session. 285 2.3. Link Summarization 287 As in [LMP], the LinkSummary message is used to synchronize the 288 Interface Ids and correlate the properties of the TE link. (Note 289 that the term "TE Link" originated from routing/signaling 290 applications of LMP, whereas this concept does not necessarily apply 291 to an OLS. However, the term is used in this document to remain 292 consistent with LMP terminology.) The LinkSummary message includes 293 one or more DATA_LINK objects. The contents of the DATA_LINK object 294 consist of a series of variable-length data items called Data Link 295 sub-objects describing the capabilities of the data links. 297 In this document, several additional Data Link sub-objects are 298 defined to describe additional link characteristics. The link 299 characteristics are, in general, those needed by the CSPF to select 300 the path for a particular LSP. These link characteristics describe 301 the specified peer node - OLS data link as well as the associated 302 DWDM span between the two OLSs. 304 The format of the Data Link sub-objects follows the format described 305 in [LMP] and is shown below for readability: 307 0 1 308 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------//--------------+ 310 | Type | Length | (Sub-object contents) | 311 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------//--------------+ 313 Type: 8 bits 315 The Type indicates the type of contents of the sub-object. 317 Length: 8 bits 319 The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in 320 bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be 321 at least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4. 323 The following Link Characteristics are exchanged on a per data link 324 basis. 326 2.3.1. Link Group ID 328 The main purpose of the Link Group ID is to reduce control traffic 329 during failures that affect many data links. A local ID may be 330 assigned to a group of data links. This ID can be used to reduce the 331 control traffic in the event of a failure by enabling a single 332 ChannelStatus message with the LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object (see 333 Section 2.4.1) to be used for a group of data links instead of 334 individual ChannelStatus messages for each data link. A data link 335 may be a member of multiple groups. This is achieved by including 336 multiple Link Group ID sub-objects in the LinkSummary message. 338 The Link Group ID feature allows Link Groups to be assigned based 339 upon the types of fault correlation and aggregation supported by a 340 given OLS. From a practical perspective, the Link Group ID is used 341 to map (or group) data links into "failable entities" known 342 primarily to the OLS. If one of those failable entities fails, all 343 associated data links are failed and the peer node is notified with 344 a single message. 346 For example, an OLS could create a Link Group for each laser in the 347 OLS. The data links associated with each laser would then each be 348 assigned the Link Group ID for that laser. If a laser fails, the OLS 349 would then report a single failure affecting all of the data links 350 with Link Group ID of the failed laser. The peer node that receives 351 the single failure notification then knows which data links are 352 affected. Similarly, an OLS could create a Link Group ID for a 353 fiber, to report a failure affecting all of the data links 354 associated with that fiber if a loss-of-signal (LOS) is detected for 355 that fiber. 357 The format of the Link Group ID sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=8) is 358 as follows: 360 0 1 2 3 361 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 362 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 363 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 | Link Group ID | 366 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 368 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 370 Link Group ID: 32 bits 372 Link Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data 373 links in a TE link. All data links are members of Link Group 374 0xFFFFFFFF by default. 376 2.3.2. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Identifier 378 This identifies the SRLGs of which the data link is a member. This 379 information may be configured on an OLS by the user and used for 380 diverse path computation (see [GMPLS-RTG]). 382 The format of the SRLG sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=(N+1)*4 where N 383 is the number of SRLG values) is as follows: 385 0 1 2 3 386 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 387 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 388 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 389 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 390 | SRLG value #1 | 391 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 392 | SRLG value #2 | 393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 394 // ... // 395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 396 | SRLG value #(N-1) | 397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 398 | SRLG value #N | 399 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 401 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 403 Shared Risk Link Group Value: 32 bits 405 See [GMPLS-RTG]. List as many SRLGs as apply. 407 2.3.3. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate 409 This object provides an estimate of the BER for the data link. 411 The Bit Error Rate (BER) is the proportion of bits that have errors 412 relative to the total number of bits received in a transmission, 413 usually expressed as ten to a negative power. For example, a 414 transmission might have a BER of "10 to the minus 13", meaning that, 415 out of every 10,000,000,000,000 bits transmitted, one bit may be in 416 error. The BER is an indication of overall signal quality. 418 The format of the BER Estimate sub-object (Type=TBD; Length=4) is as 419 follows: 421 0 1 2 3 422 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 423 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 424 | Type | Length | BER | (Reserved) | 425 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 427 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 429 BER: 8 bits 431 The exponent from the BER representation described above. I.e., 432 if the BER is 10 to the minus X, the BER field is set to X. 434 2.3.4. Optical Protection 436 This indicates whether the link is protected by the OLS. This 437 information can be used as a measure of link capability. It may be 438 advertised by routing and used by signaling as a selection criterion 439 as described in [RFC3471]. 441 The format of the Optical Protection sub-object (Type=TBD; Length=4) 442 is as follows: 444 0 1 2 3 445 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 446 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 447 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | Link Flags| 448 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 450 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 452 Link Flags: 6 bits 454 Encoding for Link Flags is defined in Section 7 of [RFC3471]. 456 2.3.5. Total Span Length 457 This indicates the total distance of fiber in the OLS. This may be 458 used as a routing metric or to estimate delay. 460 The format of the Total Span Length sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=8) 461 is as follows: 463 0 1 2 3 464 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 465 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 466 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 467 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 468 | Span Length | 469 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 471 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 473 Span Length: 32 bits 475 This value represents the total Length of the WDM span in meters 476 expressed as an unsigned (long) integer. 478 2.3.6. Administrative Group (Color) 480 The administrative group (or Color) to which the data link belongs. 482 The format of the Administrative Group sub-object (Type=TBD, 483 Length=8) is as follows: 485 0 1 2 3 486 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 487 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 488 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 489 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 490 | Administrative Group | 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 493 The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 495 Administrative Group: 32 bits 497 A 32 bit value as defined in [RFC3630]. 499 2.4. Fault Management 501 Fault management consists of three major functions: 503 1. Fault Detection 504 2. Fault Localization 505 3. Fault Notification 507 The fault detection mechanisms are the responsibility of the 508 individual nodes and are not specified as part of this protocol. 510 Fault detection mechanisms may include a bit error rate (BER) 511 exceeding a threshold, loss of signal (LOS) and SONET/SDH-level 512 errors. It is the responsibility of the OLS to translate these 513 failures into (Signal) OK, Signal Failure (SF), or Signal Degrade 514 (SD) as described in [LMP]. 516 I.e., an OLS uses the messages defined in the LMP fault localization 517 procedures (ChannelStatus, ChannelStatusAck, ChannelStatusRequest, 518 and ChannelStatusResponse Messages) to inform the adjacent peer node 519 of failures it has detected, in order to initiate the LMP fault 520 localization procedures between peer nodes, but it does not 521 participate in those procedures. 523 The OLS may also execute its own fault localization process to allow 524 it to determine the location of the fault along the DWDM span. For 525 example, the OLS may be able to pinpoint the fault to a particular 526 amplifier in a span of thousands of kilometers in length. 528 To report data link failures and recovery conditions, LMP-WDM uses 529 the ChannelStatus, ChannelStatusAck, ChannelStatusRequest, and 530 ChannelStatusResponse Messages defined in [LMP]. 532 Each data link is identified by an Interface_ID. In addition, a Link 533 Group ID may be assigned to a group of data links (see Section 534 2.3.1). The Link Group ID may be used to reduce the control traffic 535 by providing channel status information for a group of data links. A 536 new LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is defined below for this 537 purpose. This object may be used in place of the CHANNEL_STATUS 538 objects described in [LMP] in the ChannelStatus message. 540 2.4.1. LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS Object 542 The LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is used to indicate the status 543 of the data links belonging to a particular Link Group. The 544 correlation of data links to Group ID is made with the Link Group ID 545 sub-object of the DATA_LINK Object. 547 The format of the LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is as follows 548 (Class = 13, C-Type =TBA by IANA): 550 0 1 2 3 551 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 552 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 553 | Link Group ID | 554 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 555 |A|D| Channel Status | 556 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 557 | : | 558 // : // 559 | : | 560 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 561 | Link Group ID | 562 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 563 |A|D| Channel Status | 564 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 566 Link Group ID: 32 bits 568 Link Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data 569 links in a TE link. All data links are members of Link Group 570 0xFFFFFFFF by default. 572 Channel Status: 32 bits 574 The values for the Channel Status field are defined in [LMP]. 576 This Object is non-negotiable. 578 3. Intellectual Property Considerations 580 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 581 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 582 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 583 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 584 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 585 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 586 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 587 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 588 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances 589 of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made 590 to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 591 proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification 592 can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 594 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 595 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 596 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 597 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 598 Director. 600 4. References 602 4.1. Normative References 604 [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. et al, "Routing Extensions in 605 Support of Generalized MPLS," (work in progress). 607 [LMP] Lang, J. P., Editor, "The Link Management Protocol 608 (LMP)," (work in progress). 610 [LMP-SDH] Lang, J. P., Papadimitriou, D., "SONET/SDH Encoding for 611 Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test messages," (work in 612 progress). 614 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 615 Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 617 [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 618 Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional Description," 619 RFC 3471, January 2003. 621 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and Kompella, K., "Traffic 622 Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2," RFC 623 3630, September 2003. 625 4.2. Informative References 627 [OLI] Fredette, A., Editor, "Optical Link Interface 628 Requirements," (work in progress). 630 5. Security Considerations 632 LMP message security uses IPsec as described in [LMP]. This document 633 only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing LMP 634 messages. As such, this document introduces no other new security 635 considerations not covered in [LMP]. 637 6. IANA Considerations 639 LMP [LMP] defines the following name spaces and how IANA can make 640 assignments in those namespaces: 642 - LMP Message Type. 643 - LMP Object Class. 644 - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class. 645 - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class. 647 This memo introduces the following new assignments: 649 LMP Object Class Types: 651 o under CONFIG class name (as defined in [LMP]) 652 - LMP-WDM_CONFIG (suggested C-Type = 2) 654 o under CHANNEL_STATUS class name (as defined in [LMP]) 655 - LINK_GROUP (suggested C-Type = 4) 657 LMP Sub-Object Class names: 659 o under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in [LMP]) 660 - Link_GroupId (suggested sub-object Type = 3) 661 - SRLG (suggested sub-object Type = 4) 662 - BER_Estimate (suggested sub-object Type = 5) 663 - Optical_Protection (suggested sub-object Type = 6) 664 - Total_Span_Length (suggested sub-object Type = 7) 665 - Administrative_Group (suggested sub-object Type = 8) 667 7. Contributors 669 Osama S. Aboul-Magd, Stuart Brorson, Sudheer Dharanikota, John 670 Drake, David Drysdale, W. L. Edwards, Adrian Farrel, Andre Fredette, 671 Rohit Goyal, Hirokazu Ishimatsu, Monika Jaeger, Ram Krishnan, 672 Jonathan P. Lang, Raghu Mannam, Eric Mannie, Dimitri Papadimitriou, 673 Jagan Shantigram, Ed Snyder, George Swallow, Gopala Tumuluri, Yong 674 Xue, Lucy Yong, John Yu. 676 8. Contact Address 678 Andre Fredette 679 Hatteras Networks 680 P.O. Box 110025 681 Research Triangle Park 682 NC 27709-0025, USA 684 EMail: Afredette@HatterasNetworks.com 686 Jonathan P. Lang 687 Rincon Networks 688 829 De La Vina, Suite 220 689 Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA 691 EMail: jplang@ieee.org 693 9. Full Copyright Statement 695 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 697 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 698 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 699 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 700 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 701 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 702 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 703 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 704 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 705 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 706 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 707 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 708 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 709 English. 711 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 712 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 714 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 715 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 716 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 717 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 718 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 719 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.