CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor Internet Draft Expiration Date: April 2002 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 to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.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-extensions-00.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 GMPLS signaling extensions to control SONET and SDH document [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] that defines the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and SDH features: arbitrary concatenation, per byte transparency and the virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated signals. 1. Introduction Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [GMPLS-ARCH] 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]. [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] 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. This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and SDH features: arbitrary concatenation (section 2), per byte transparency (section 3) and the virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated signals (section 4). Section 5 gives examples of SONET/SDH traffic parameters (also referred to as signal coding) when requesting a SDH/SONET LSP. Such useful features are already implemented or under develoment by a significant number of manufacturers. For instance, arbitrary concatenation is already implemented in many legacy SONET and SDH equipment that don't support any byte-oriented protocol based control plane. This document doesn't specify how to implement these features in the transmission plane but how to control their usage with a GMPLS control plane. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 2 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 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. Contiguous Concatenation Extension This section defines the following optional extension flag for the Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]: Flag 2 (bit 2): Arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This flag allows an upstream node to signal to a downstream node that it supports arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This type of concatenation is not defined by ANSI or ITU-T. Arbitrary contiguous concatenation allows for any value of X (X less or equal N) in VC-4-X/STS-X resulting in a VC-4-Xa/STS-Xa signal. In addition, it allows the arbitrary contiguous concatenated signal to start at any location (AU-4/STS-1 timeslot) in the STM-N/STS-N signal. This flag can be setup together with Flag 1 (Standard Contiguous Concatenation) to give a choice to the downstream node. The resulting type of contiguous concatenation can be different at each hop according to the result of the negotiation. A label is assigned following the same rule as for the Standard Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]). 3. Transparency Extension This section defines the following optional extension for the Transparency field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]. This "extended" transparency (simply referred here as transparency) can be requested for a particular SOH/RSOH or MSOH/LOH field in the STM-N/STS-N signal. Transparency is not applied at the interfaces of the initiating and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate LSRs. Moreover, the transparency extensions can be implemented effectively in very different ways, e.g. by forwarding the corresponding overhead bytes unmodified, or by tunneling the bytes. This specification specifies neither how transparency is achieved; nor the behavior of the signal at the egress of the transparent network during fault conditions at the ingress of the transparent network or within the transparent network; nor network deployment scenarios. The signaling is independent of these considerations. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 3 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 When the signaling is used between intermediate nodes it is up to a data plane profile or specification to indicate how transparency is effectively achieved in the data plane. When the signaling is used at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs it is up to the data plane specification to guarantee compliant behavior to G.707/T1.105 under fault free and fault conditions. Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed. Note that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete previous frame, except the SOH/RSOH. The different transparency extension flags are the following: Flag 3 (bit 3) : J0. Flag 4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3). Flag 5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12). Flag 6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156). Flag 7 (bit 7) : K1/K2. Flag 8 (bit 8) : E1. Flag 9 (bit 9) : F1. Flag 10 (bit 10): E2. Flag 11 (bit 11): B1. Flag 12 (bit 12): B2. Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency (refer to section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) can be combined only with any of the following transparency types: J0, SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3), E1, F1; and all other transparency flags must be ignored. Note that the extended LOH/MSOH DCC (D13-D156) is only applicable to (defined for) STS-768/STM-256. If B1 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit error supervision functionality provided by the B1. The B1 contains the BIP8 calculated over the previous RS/Section frame of the STM- N/STS-N signal at the RS/Section termination source. At the RS/Section termination sink the B1 BIP is compared with the local BIP also calculated over the previous RS/Section frame of the STM- N/STS-N. Any difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case of B1 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means that a B1 bit error detection as described above performed after the transparent transport (at a RS/Section termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur between the B1 insertion point (RS/Section termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to the previous RS/Section frame content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the RS/Section overhead, modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the B1 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 4 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 If B2 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit error supervision functionality provided by the B2. The B2 contains the BIP24*N/BIP8*N calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the STM-N/STS-N signal at the MS/Line termination source. At the MS/Line termination sink the B2 BIP is compared with the local BIP also calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the STM-N/STS-N. Any difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case of B2 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means that a B2 bit error detection as described above performed after the transparent transport (at a MS/Line termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur between the B2 insertion point (MS/Line termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to the previous MS/Line frame content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the MS/Line overhead, modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the B2 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. 4. Virtual Concatenation Extension This section defines the following optional extension for the signals that can be virtually concatenated. In addition to the elementary signal types, which can be virtual concatenated as indicated in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH], identical contiguously concatenated signals may be virtual concatenated. In this last case, it allows to request the virtual concatenation of, for instance, several VC-4-4c/STS-12c SPEs (i.e. per [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] (STS-3c)-4c SPE), or any VC-4-Xc/STS-Xc SPEs to obtain a VC-4-Xc-Yv/STS-Xc-Yv SPE. Note that the standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link. Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated). In case of virtual concatenation of a contiguously concatenated signal, the same rule as described in section 3 of [GMPLS-SONET- SD] for virtual concatenation applies, except that a component of the virtually concatenated signal is now a contiguously concatenated signal. The first label indicates the first contiguously concatenated signal; the second label indicates the second contiguously concatenated signal, and so on. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 5 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 5. Examples This section 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 in [GMPLS_SONET_SDH], signal types are Elementary Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency transforms can be applied. 1. An STM-64 signal with RSOH and MSOH DCCs 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 4 and 5 to an STM-64 Elementary Signal. 2. An STS-192 signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-192 Elementary Signal. 3. An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 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 5 and 10 to an STS-48 Elementary Signal. 4. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC 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 5 and 7 to an STS-768 Elementary Signal. 5. 4 x STS-12 signals with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal. 6. 2 x STS-4a-5v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 2 (for arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 4, NVC with value 5, MT with value 2 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 7. A VC-4-3a signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 8. An STS-34a SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 34, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 6. Acknowledgments Valuable comments and input were received from many people. E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 6 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 7. Security Considerations This draft introduces no new security considerations to [GMPLS- SONET-SDH]. 8. 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] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH control", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.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. 9. 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 7 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.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 8 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.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 9 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.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 10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.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 11