CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor Internet Draft Expiration Date: April 2001 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel) Ayan Banerjee (Calient) Lou Berger (Movaz) Greg Bernstein (Ciena) Angela Chiu (Celion) John Drake (Calient) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave) Michele Fontana (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Juergen Heiles(Siemens) Suresh Katukam (Cisco) Kireeti Kompella (Juniper) Jonathan P. Lang (Calient) Fong Liaw (Zaffire) Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent) Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium) Mike Raftelis (White Rock) Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Debanjan Saha (Tellium) Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) George Swallow (Cisco) Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) Eve Varma (Lucent) Maarten Vissers (Lucent) Yangguang Xu (Lucent) October 2001 GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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." E. Mannie Editor 1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document is a companion to the Generalized MPLS signaling documents, [GMPLS-SIG], [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. It defines the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. 1. Introduction Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching to include support of three new classes of interfaces and switching: Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and Fiber- Switch (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP- TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to SONET/SDH. Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects. 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 [RFC2119]. 2. SDH and SONET Traffic Parameters This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH. The protocol specific formats, for the SDH/SONET-specific RSVP-TE objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities for SONET (ANSI T1.105) and SDH (ITU-T G.707) such as concatenation and transparency. Some extra non-standard capabilities are defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]. Other documents could further enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance, signaling for SDH over PDH (ITU-T G.832), or sub-STM-0 (ITU-T G.708) interfaces could be defined. The traffic parameters defined hereafter MUST be used when SONET/SDH is specified in the LSP Encoding Type field of a Generalized Label Request [GMPLS-SIG]. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 2 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH is organized as follows: 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | RCC | NCC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transparency (T) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Annex 1 defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Signal Type (ST): 8 bits This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal being actually requested for the LSP. Each transform is optional and must be ignored if zero, except MT that cannot be zero and is ignored if equal to one. Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order: - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal. - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or optionally on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the previous phase (see [GMPLS-SONET- SDH-EXT]). - Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when requesting a frame as signal rather than an SPE or VC based signal (by using the Transparency field). - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the second phase, or on these signals combined with some transparency. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 3 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are: Value Type ----- ----------------- 1 VT1.5 SPE / VC-11 2 VT2 SPE / VC-12 3 VT3 SPE 4 VT6 SPE / VC-2 5 STS-1 SPE / VC-3 6 STS-3c SPE / VC-4 7 STS-1 / STM-0 (only when requesting transparency) 8 STS-3 / STM-1 (only when requesting transparency) 9 STS-12 / STM-4 (only when requesting transparency) 10 STS-48 / STM-16 (only when requesting transparency) 11 STS-192 / STM-64 (only when requesting transparency) 12 STS-768 / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency) A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs. This is done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH signaling. Refer to Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for an extended set of signal type values beyond the signal types as defined in T1.105/G.707. Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits This field is used to request and sometimes negotiate (see [GMPLS-SDH-SONET-EXT]) the optional SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation of the Elementary Signal. This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation. Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice. These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use according to its own rules. A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag chooses, as it likes, a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any supported. A downstream node that doesnĖt support any of the concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it doesnĖt support contiguous concatenation at all. The upstream node know which type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node chosen by looking at the position indicated by the first label and the number of label(s) as returned by the downstream node. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 4 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is being requested. The following flag is defined: Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation. Flag 1 indicates that only the standard SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707 is supported. Note that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for extensions, if not used they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of components is a multiple of three. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of contiguous concatenation types beyond the contiguous concatenation types as defined in T1.105/G.707. Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH SPEs/VCs that are requested to be concatenated, as specified in the RCC field. Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the elementary signal to use must always be an STS-3c SPE signal type and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This allows also facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs cannot not be requested because according to this specification, this type of signal must be coded using the STS-3c SPE signal type. Note 2: when requesting a transparent STM-N/STS-N signal limited to a single contiguously concatenated VC-4-Nc/STS-Nc- SPE, the signal type must be STM-N/STS-N, RCC with flag 1 and NCC set to 1. This field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when send, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value different from 0 must imply a number of components greater than 1. The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous concatenation being requested in the RCC field. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 5 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which signal types are defined in this document, i.e. VT1.5 SPE, VT2 SPE, VT3 SPE, VT6 SPE, STS-1 SPE, STS-3c SPE, VC-11, VC-12, VC-2, VC-3 or VC-4. This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual concatenation is requested. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of signals that can be virtually concatenated beyond the virtual concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707. Multiplier (MT): 16 bits This field indicates the number of identical signals that are requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals belongs thus to the same LSP. The distinction between the components of multiple virtually concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must describe the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the first virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe the second component (set of individual signals belonging to the second virtual concatenated signal) and so on. This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly one instance of a signal is being requested. Zero is an invalid value. Transparency (T): 32 bits This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations are necessarily valid. The default value for this field is zero, i.e. no transparency requested. Transparency as defined from the point of view of this signaling specification is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are part of the LOH. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 6 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using the following Signal Types: STM-0, STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM- 64, STM-256, STS-1, STS-3, STS-12, STS-48, STS-192, and STS- 768. At least one transparency type must be specified when requesting such a signal type. Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP. An ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR without any change. From the ingress and egress LSRs point of views, these fields must be seen as unmodified. Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate LSRs. The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports the requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup the transparency process to be applied in each intermediate LSR. The different transparency flags are the following: Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer. Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer. Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved, they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding transparency is requested. Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency all other flags must be ignored. Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be adjusted. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of transparency types beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707. 2.2. RSVP-TE Details For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The contents of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The objects have the following class and type: E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 7 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707: SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (TBA) SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (TBA) There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC. Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, see [RFC2210]. For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. 2.3. CR-LDP Details For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The contents of the TLV is defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: 0xTBA. 3. SDH and SONET Labels SDH and SONET each define a multiplexing structure, with the SONET multiplex structure being a subset of the SDH multiplex structure. These two structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STM-N or an STS-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported via the time-slots and switched between time-slots, i.e. a VC-x or a VT-x. An SDH/SONET label will identify the exact position of a particular signal in a multiplexing structure. SDH and SONET labels are carried in the Generalized Label per [GMPLS- RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to create unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH multiplexing structure, the same format of label is used for SDH and SONET. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is used. However, in E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 8 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 some cases the encoding specified hereafter can make the direct distinction between SDH and SONET. In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label. In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the Label field. That label is the lowest signal of the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest signal we mean the one having the lowest label when compared as integer values, i.e. the first component signal of the concatenated signal encountered when descending the tree. In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates a component of the virtually concatenated signal. The order of the labels must reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate (not the physical order of time-slots). The above representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a single (component) link; it imposes as such a restriction compared to the specification in G.707/T1.105. In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform), the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the first virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above representation limits multiplication to remain within a single (component) link. The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET TDM-LSR link is: 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | S | U | K | L | M | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ For SDH, this is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in G.707 section 7.3, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. For SONET, the U and K fields are not significant and must be set to zero. Only the S, L and M fields are significant for SONET and have a similar meaning as for SDH. Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to indicate a non-significant field. When a field is not significant in a particular context it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 9 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 When hierarchical SDH/SONET LSPs are used, an LSP with a given bandwidth can be used to tunnel lower order LSPs. The higher order SDH/SONET LSP behaves as a virtual link with a given bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SDH/SONET LSP can be established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label is non-significant and is set to zero. For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be advertised as a forwarding adjacency. In that case the labels allocated between the two ends of that LSP (i.e. for that "link") will have S, U and K set to zero, i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the signal allocated in that VC-3. 1. S is the index of a particular AUG-1/STS-1. S=1->N indicates a specific AUG-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N multiplex. For example, S=1 indicates the first AUG-1/STS-1, and S=N indicates the last AUG-1/STS-1 of this multiplex. 2. U is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET. It indicates a specific VC inside a given AUG-1. U=1 indicates a single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a specific VC-3 inside the given AUG-1. 3. K is only significant for SDH VC-4 and must be ignored for SONET and SDH HOVC-3. It indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. K=1 indicates that the VC-4 is not further subdivided and contains a C-4. K=2->4 indicates a specific TUG-3 inside the VC- 4. K is not significant when the AUG-1 is divided into AU-3s (easy to read and test). 4. L indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. It is not significant for an unstructured VC-4 or STS-1 SPE. L=1 indicates that the TUG-3/VC-3/STS-1 SPE is not further subdivided and contains a VC-3/C-3 in SDH or the equivalent in SONET. L=2->8 indicates a specific TUG-2/VT Group inside the corresponding higher order signal. 5. M indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group. It is not significant for an unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. M=1 indicates that the TUG-2/VT Group is not further subdivided and contains a VC-2/VT-6 SPE. M=2->3 indicates a specific VT-3 inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 with SDH. M=4->6 indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 SPE inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. M=7->10 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that M=0 denotes an unstructured VC-4, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (easy for debugging). E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 The M encoding is summarized in the following table: M SDH SONET ---------------------------------------------------------- 0 unstructured VC-4/VC-3 unstructured STS-1 SPE 1 VC-2 VT-6 2 - 1st VT-3 3 - 2nd VT-3 4 1st VC-12 1st VT-2 5 2nd VC-12 2nd VT-2 6 3rd VC-12 3rd VT-2 7 1st VC-11 1st VT-1.5 8 2nd VC-11 2nd VT-1.5 9 3rd VC-11 3rd VT-1.5 10 4th VC-11 4th VT-1.5 In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the lowest label of the contiguously concatenated signal as explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the signal starts and the lowest part is not significant. For instance, when requesting an STS-48c the label is S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. Examples of labels: Example 1: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0 Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth AUG-1. Example 2: S>0, U=1, K>1, L=1, M=0 Denotes the unstructured VC-3 of the Kth-1 TUG-3 of the Sth AUG-1. Example 3: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0 Denotes the unstructured SPE of the Sth STS-1. Example 4: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=1 Denotes the VT-6 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1. Example 5: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=9 Denotes the 3rd VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1. 4. Acknowledgments Valuable comments and input were received from many people. 5. Security Considerations This draft introduces no new security considerations to either [GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP]. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 11 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 6. References [GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt, July 2001. [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt, July 2001. [GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt, July 2001. [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions to control non-standard SONET and SDH features", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh- extensions-00.txt, August 2001. [GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet Draft, draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt, June 2001. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services," RFC 2210, September 1997. 7. Authors Addresses Stefan Ansorge Alcatel SEL AG Lorenzstrasse 10 70435 Stuttgart Germany Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44 Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de Peter Ashwood-Smith Nortel Networks Corp. P.O. Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Canada Phone: +1 613 763 4534 Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Ayan Banerjee Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972-3645 Email: abanerjee@calient.net Lou Berger Movaz Networks, Inc. 7926 Jones Branch Drive Suite 615 McLean VA, 22102 Phone: +1 703 847-1801 Email: lberger@movaz.com Greg Bernstein Ciena Corporation 10480 Ridgeview Court Cupertino, CA 94014 Phone: +1 408 366 4713 Email: greg@ciena.com Angela Chiu Celion Networks One Sheila Drive, Suite 2 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658 Phone: +1 732 747 9987 Email: angela.chiu@celion.com John Drake Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972 3720 Email: jdrake@calient.net Yanhe Fan Axiowave Networks, Inc. 100 Nickerson Road Marlborough, MA 01752 Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627 Email: yfan@axiowave.com Michele Fontana Alcatel TND-Vimercate Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7053 Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Gert Grammel Alcatel TND-Vimercate Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7060 Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it Juergen Heiles Siemens AG Hofmannstr. 51 D-81379 Munich, Germany Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64 Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de Suresh Katukam Cisco Systems 1450 N. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA e-mail: skatukam@cisco.com Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Email: kireeti@juniper.net Jonathan P. Lang Calient Networks 25 Castilian Goleta, CA 93117 Email: jplang@calient.net Zhi-Wei Lin 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Phone: +1 732 949 5141 Email: zwlin@lucent.com Ben Mack-Crane Tellabs Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com Eric Mannie EBONE Terhulpsesteenweg 6A 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium Phone: +32 2 658 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 14 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Dimitri Papadimitriou Senior R&D Engineer - Optical Networking Alcatel IPO-NSG Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Mike Raftelis White Rock Networks 18111 Preston Road Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75252 Phone: +1 (972)588-3728 Fax: +1 (972)588-3701 Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com Bala Rajagopalan Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4237 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: braja@tellium.com Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. Email: yakov@juniper.net Debanjan Saha Tellium Optical Systems 2 Crescent Place Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4264 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: dsaha@tellium.com Vishal Sharma Metanoia, Inc. 335 Elan Village Lane San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: +1 408 943 1794 Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 Voice: +1 978 244 8143 Email: swallow@cisco.com E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 15 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Z. Bo Tang Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4231 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: btang@tellium.com Eve Varma 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Phone: +1 732 949 8559 Email: evarma@lucent.com Maarten Vissers Botterstraat 45 Postbus 18 1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands Email: mvissers@lucent.com Yangguang Xu 21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Email: xuyg@lucent.com E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 16 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal Type values for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: Value Type ----- --------------------- 13 VTG / TUG-2 14 TUG-3 15 STSG-3 / AUG-1 16 STSG-12 / AUG-4 17 STSG-48 / AUG-16 18 STSG-192 / AUG-64 19 STSG-768 / AUG-256 Administrative Unit Group-Ns (AUG-Ns) and STS Groups-3*Ns (STSG-Ms), are logical objects that are a collection of AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU- 4s/STS-3c SPEs and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs (X = 4,16,64,256). When used as a signal type this means that all the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs in the AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs that comprise the AUG- N/STSG-3*N are switched together as one unique signal. In addition the structure of the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs in the AUG-N/STSG-3*N are preserved and are allowed to change over the life of an AUG-N/STSG-3*N. It is this flexibility in the relationships between the component VCs or SPEs that differentiates this signal from a set of VC-3s/STS- 1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs. Whether the AUG- N/STSG-3*N is structured with AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs does not need to be specified and is allowed to change over time. The same reasoning applies to TUG-2/VTG and TUG-3 signal types. For example an STSG-48 could at one time consist of four STS-12c signals and at another point in time of three STS-12c signals and four STS-3c signals. Note that the use of TUG-X, AUG-N and STSG-M as circuit types is not described in ANSI and ITU-T standards. The use of these signal types in the signaling plane is conceptual. These signal types are conceptual objects that intend to designate a group of physical objects in the standardized data plane. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 17 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Appendix 2 - Signal Type Values Extension For VC-3 This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: Value Type ----- --------------------- 20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" According to the G.707 standard a VC-3 in the TU-3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, a VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching the content with its switch fabric. In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3 branch. This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type. This information can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch to the TU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination LSR. The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in any branch is suitable. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 18 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 Annex 1 - Examples This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH signals. As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency transforms can be applied. 1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 7 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16 Elementary Signal. 5. An STM-4c signal (i.e. VC-4-4C with the transport overhead) with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-4 Elementary Signal. 6. An STM-256c signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-256 Elementary Signal. 7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0 (no contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 19 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt October, 2001 10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 11. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 9 (virtual concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal. 13. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with value 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 14. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 20