2.7.3 IP over Optical (ipo)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 51st IETF Meeting in London, England. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 31-Jul-01


James Luciani <james_luciani@mindspring.com>
Daniel Awduche <awduche@movaz.com>

Sub-IP Area Director(s):

Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Sub-IP Area Advisor:

Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>

Technical Advisor(s):

Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com
To Subscribe: http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical
Archive: http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/ip-optical/

Description of Working Group:

The advent of switched multi-channel (e.g., WDM, DWDM, OTDM) optical networks using OXCs (Optical Cross-connects) and other optical switching elements presents many new opportunities for improving the performance of IP networks and supporting faster and more flexible provisioning of IP services. However, much needs to be specified before interoperable products based on these technologies can be deployed in service provider networks. The work needed in this area includes:

- Document the use of existing framing methods for IP over optical dataplane and control channels, and as necessary specify additional framing methods.

- Identify and document the characteristics of the optical transport network that are important for selecting paths for optical channels, setting-up optical channels, and tearing-down optical channels.

- Document the applications of the common control and measurement protocols to the technology-dependent aspects of optical path setup, teardown, and maintenance of optical channels across networks with optical components.

- Document the requirements for control of optical networks by elements outside the optical network itself.

- Document the applicability of IP-based protocols for the controlled dissemination of optical network topology, metric, and constraint information. Such information can be used for inventory management, path selection, and other purposes. The information to be exchanged should accommodate both all-optical and optical-electrical-optical switching technologies.

- If a need is identified to develop new protocols or make incompatible modifications to existing protocols (e.g., routing and signaling protocols) to accomplish the above goals, then a recharter must first be approved before undertaking such work.

The IP over Optical WG will coordinate with relevant working groups within the IETF to leverage existing work. The WG may also generate requirements for other IETF WGs as needed. Additionally, the WG may collaborate with other standards bodies and interoperability forums engaged in IP over optical activities (e.g., including ITU-T) to share information, minimize duplication of effort, and coordinate activities in order to promote interoperability and serve the best interest of the industry.

Goals and Milestones:

Mar 01


Produce Framework document with adequate motivation and detailed description of the context and solution space for IP/optical.

Aug 01


Submit I-D on 'carrier optical services' requirements for IP/Optical networks.

Aug 01


Submit I-D on the unique features of optical networks that are relevant for path computation and signaling in IP/Optical contexts.

Apr 02


Submit I-D on the Traffic Engineering issues that are specific to IP/Optical networks, which take into account the peculiar characteristics of the operating environment, including aspects of protection/restoration unique to IP/optical.

Apr 02


Submit I-D on the requirements for distribution of optical topology state information using the common control and measurement protocols.

Apr 02


Submit I-D on the requirements for signaling in IP/Optical networks using IP signaling protocols.

Dec 02


Submit applicability statements describing the use of IP based protocols for signaling and dissemination of network topology state information in IP/Optical networks.

Dec 02


Document existing encapsulation schemes for IP/optical data plane and control plane channels.

Dec 02


Submit Framework draft to IESG as a informational RFC.

No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

IPO Minutes:

1. draft-ietf-ipo-ason-00.txt: Osama Aboul-Magd

Presented the draft.

Unknown: Should this doc. show the relationship between ASON and IPO framework, and not GMPLS architecture?

Osama: Don't see any conflict with IPO framework.

Unknown: Is there any conflict with the overlay model described in the IPO framework?

OSama: NO comments.

Eric Mannie: Is this informational?

Chairs: Yes.

Eric: GMPLS arch. has a ASON appendix. This app. must be removed. Perhaps a seaprate draft on GMPLS-ASON architecture may be written.

2. draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements-00.txt: Yong Xue

Presented the draft.

Kireeti: Great that there are carrier requirements. In IETF we can't say that we'll consider other clients. Also, can't look at NSAP addresses here. We also look at UNI and NNI, and this separation should be removed.

Yong: Seems like GMPLS has been designed to handle both.

Kireeti: Problem with calling them UNI and NNI is that people think it's different protocols. Believe that there are different requirements, but need not be different protocols.

Dan: Need to come to some agreement on the terminology. These interfaces arise from user requirements.

3. draft-ietf-ipo-impairments-00.txt: Angela Chiu

Presented the draft.

Jim: When presenting the draft in the future, it should focus on the implications to IP (or control plane) issues and less so on the physics

4. draft-ietf-ipo-framework-00.txt: Bala Rajagopalan

Presented the draft.

Jim: The network model change is significant. Please look through and send comments.

5. draft-bernstein-optical-bgp-01.txt: Greg Bernstein

Presented the draft.

Yuangang Xu: Please don't use BGP in the title. Treat generic issues.

Dimitri Papadimitriou: What's the purpose of the Section 4.3 (related to SDH/Sonet networking) in an "optical" routing draft ? Such a section shouldn't be part of a document focusing on "optical" routing.

Greg: We'll clarify this.

Jim: Should this be a WG doc?

Yuangang: Since OIF is doing this, need coordination.

Jim: We'll coordinate.

Tom Narten: Need to clarify what the OIF content is going to be.
Seems a bit open-ended.

Kireeti: IPO does requirement. CCAMP is not chartered to do interdomain. If this doc is taken as a WG doc in IPO, ccamp must be chartered to do the protocol work.

Jim: Agreed.

Greg: The doc also tries to figure out if anything needs to be done.

Yong Xue: OIF does only implementation agreement. The OIF requirements can be introduced in IETF work.

Jim: We need to focus on the practical issues of interdomain. This is only just getting beyond researchy oriented work.

A suggestion to put the SONET aspects in an appendix.
Chairs concurred.

6. draft-ylee-protection-OCC-00.txt: Young Lee

Presented the draft.

Unknown: Why have this draft here?

Young: Informational only.

Marteen Vissers: T1X1 is just considering this work.

Dan: This work will not be further considered in the IPO group.

7. draft-dotaro-ipo-multi-granularity-00.txt

Presented the draft.

Dan: Don't see a context in this WG for the draft.

Jim: This draft has nothing to do with any work items in the group.

Dotaro: If it's not IPO, I don't know where it belongs.

Tom Narten: General question to ask yourself is to see if the draft belongs in the WG. The draft must specifically fit within a charter item, not the general working area.

Dotaro: Our understanding is that this is the best place.

(Conlusion seems to be that the draft doesn't belong in the IPO WG)

8. Conclusions: Dan

- Accomplished the charter agenda, 4 WG drafts are in progress.
- Turns out that what ITU is doing is complimentary to IETF work.
- It'll be useful to get into the next level of abstraction in the impairments work, so that metrics for path computation can be defined.

Going forward:

- The charter allows for applicability statements, e.g., how to use ccamp protocols in IPO work.

Kireeti: The ccamp protocols are going for last round of comments.
In 3 weeks, they'll go for IETF last call.

- Applicability states how the protocols are used, not define extensions etc.

- Document existing encapsulation schemes for IPO.

- TE considerations specific to IPO.


Optical Multi-Granularity Architectural Framework
Optical Inter-Domain Routing Considerations
IP over Optical Networks - A Framework
Impairments And Other Constraints On Optical Layer Routing
Carrier Optical Services Requirements