wdiff draft-ietf-pppext-posvcholo-05.txt draft-ietf-pppext-posvcholo-06.txt

PPP Extensions Working Group N. Jones,
INTERNET DRAFT Agere Systems,
Category: Standards Track C. Murton,
Expires: June 2002 Nortel Networks
December 2001A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

RFC 3255

Title: Extending PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) over SONET/SDH
Synchronous Optical NETwork/Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) with virtual concatenation,
high order and low order payloads
<draft-ietf-pppext-posvcholo-05.txt>

Status of this Memo
Author(s): N. Jones, C. Murton
Status: Standards Track
Date: April 2002
Mailbox: nrjones@agere.com, murton@nortelnetworks.com
Pages: 8
Characters: 14192
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None

I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pppext-posvcholo-06.txt

URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3255.txt

This document is describes an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

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. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or extension to cite them other than as a
"working draft" or "work in progress".

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

Distribution mapping of this draft is unlimited.

Jones Expires June 2002 1
=0C
Abstract

The RFC 1661 Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard
method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point
links. The RFC 1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing [2] and RFC 2615 PPP
over SONET/SDH (POS) [3] documents describe the use of PPP over into Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous NETwork/Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH) circuits.

This document describes an extension to the mapping of PPP into
SONET/SDH defined in RFC 2615 PPP over SONET/SDH (POS) [3], (SONET/SDH) to include the use of SONET/SDH SPE/VC virtual
concatenation and the use of both high order and low order payloads.

This document is the a product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions
Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Comments should be submitted to the ietf-ppp@merit.edu
mailing list.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................3

2. Rate Comparisons............................................4

3. Physical Layer Requirements.................................5

4. Standards Status............................................6

5. Security Considerations.....................................6

6. References..................................................7

7. Acknowledgments.............................................7

10. Author's Addresses..........................................7

11. Copyright Notice............................................8

Jones Expires June 2002 2
=0C
1. Introduction

Current implementations of PPP over SONET/SDH are required to select
transport structures from the relatively limited number of
contiguously concatenated signals that are available

The only currently supported SONET/SDH SPE/VCs in RFC 2615 [3] are
the following:

SONET SDH
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c

Note that VC-4-4c and above are not widely supported in SDH networks
at present.

The use of virtual concatenation means that the right size SONET/SDH
bandwidth can be selected for PPP links.

For the convenience of the reader, the equivalent terms are listed
below:

SONET SDH
---------------------------------------------
SPE VC
VT (1.5/2/6) Low order VC (VC-11/12/2)
STS SPE Higher Order VC (VC-3/4/4-Nc)
STS-1 frame STM-0 frame (rarely used)
STS-1 SPE VC-3
STS-1-nv VC-3-nv (virtual concatenation)
STS-1 payload C-3
STS-3c frame STM-1 frame, AU-4
STS-3c SPE VC-4
STS-3c-nv VC-4-nv (virtual concatenation)
STS-3c payload C-4
STS-12c/48c/192c frame STM-4/16/64 frame, AU-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c-SPE VC-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c payload C-4-4c/16c/64c IETF.

This table is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

This document specifies an extended version of the equivalent table in RFC
2615 [3]. Additional information on Internet standards track protocol for
the above terms can be found in
Bellcore GR-253-CORE [4], ANSI T1.105 [5], ANSI T1.105.02 [6] Internet community, and
ITU-T G.707 [7].

Jones Expires June 2002 3
=0C
2. Rate Comparisons

Currently supported WAN bandwidth links for PPP over SONET/SDH:

ANSI ETSI
-----------------------------------------------------
STS-3c (150Mbit/s) STM-1 (150Mbit/s)
STS-12c (620Mbit/s) STM-4 AU-4-4c (620Mbit/s)
STS-48c (2.4Gbit/s) STM-16 AU-4-16c (2.4Gbit/s)
STS-192c (9.6Gbit/s) STM-64 AU-4-64c (9.6Gbit/s)

Note that AU-4-4c requests discussion and AU-4-16c are not generally available in SDH
networks at present.

With virtual concatenation the following additional WAN bandwidth
links would be available for PPP over SONET/SDH:

SONET

VT-1.5-nv (n=3D1-64) 1.6Mbit/s-102Mbit/s
STS-1-nv (n=3D1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/s
STS-3c-nv (n=3D1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/s

SDH

VC-12-nv (n=3D1-64) 2.2Mbit/s-139Mbit/s
VC-3-nv (n=3D1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/s
VC-4-nv (n=3D1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/s

Higher levels of virtual concatenation are possible, but not
necessarily useful. Lower levels of virtual concatenation are
defined in the telecommunications standards suggestions
for use if needed.

Table 1 and Table 2,respectively depict the SONET/SDH transport
structures that are currently available improvements. Please refer to carry various popular bit
rates. Each table contains three columns. The first column shows the
bit rates of the service to be transported.

The next column contains two values:

a) the logical signals that are currently available to provide such
transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency of the
given transport signal without the use of virtual concatenation.

Likewise, the final column also contains two values:

a) the logical signals that are currently available to provide such
transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency current edition of the
given transport signal with the use of virtual concatenation.

Jones Expires June 2002 4
=0C
Note, that Table 1, contains SONET transport signals with the
following effective payload capacity: VT-1.5 SPE =3D 1.600 Mbit/s,
STS-1 SPE =3D 49.536 Mbit/s, STS-3c SPE =3D 149.760 Mbit/s, STS-12c =
SPE
=3D 599.040 Mbit/s, STS-48c SPE =3D 2,396.160 Mbit/s and STS-192c =
SPE =3D
9,584.640 Mbit/s.

Table 1. SONET Virtual Concatenation

Bit rate Without With
--------------------------------------------

10Mbit/s STS-1 (20%) VT-1.5-7v (89%)
100Mbit/s STS-3c (67%) STS-1-2v (100%)
200Mbit/s STS-12c(33%) STS-1-4v (100%)
1Gbit/s STS-48c(42%) STS-3c-7v (95%)

Similarly, Table 2, contains SDH transport signals with the
following effective payload capacity: VC-12 =3D 2.176 Mbit/s,
VC-3 =3D 48.960 Mbit/s, VC-4 =3D 149.760 Mbit/s, VC-4-4c =3D 599.040
Mbit/s, VC-4-16c =3D 2,396.160 Mbit/s and VC-4-64c =3D 9,584.640 =
Mbit/s.

Table 2. SDH Virtual Concatenation

Bit rate Without With
-------------------------------------------

10Mbit/s VC-3 (20%) VC-12-5v (92%)
100Mbit/s VC-4 (67%) VC-3-2v (100%)
200Mbit/s VC-4-4c(33%) VC-3-4v (100%)
1Gbit/s VC-4-16c(42%) VC-4-7v (95%)

3. Physical Layer Requirements

There are two minor modifications to the physical layer requirements
as defined in RFC 2615 when virtually concatenated SPEs/VCs are used
to provide transport
"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for PPP over SONET/SDH.

First, the path signal label (C2 byte) value for SONET/SDH STS-1/VC-
3
standardization state and above SPE/VCs status of this protocol. Distribution
of this memo is required to be the same for all constituent
channels. unlimited.

This announcement is in contrast sent to the use of a single C2 byte for PPP
transport over contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs. The
values used for the C2 bytes should be in accordance with RFC 2615.
For SONET VT-1.5/2/6 IETF list and SDH VC-11/12/2 the path signal label (V5
byte bits 5-7) is required RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be the same for all constituent
channels per ITU-T G.707 [7] and ANSI T1.105.02 [6].

Second, for SONET/SDH STS-1/VC-3 and above SPE/VCs the multi-frame
indicator (H4) byte will be unused for transport links utilizing
contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs. When the concatenation
scheme is virtual as opposed added to contiguous the H4 byte must be
populated as per ITU-T G.707 or T1.105.02. Similarly, for virtual
concatenation based on SONET VT-1.5/2/6 and SDH VC-11/12/2 channels

Jones Expires June 2002 5
=0C
bit 2 of deleted from the path overhead K4 byte will IETF distribution list
should be set sent to the value
indicated per ITU-T G.707 [7] and ANSI T1.105.02 [6].

4. Standards Status

ITU-T (SG13/SG15), ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 have developed a
global standard for SONET/SDH High Order and Low Order payload
Virtual Concatenation. This standard is defined in the following
documents:

ITU-T G.803 Architecture of transport networks based on the
synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)

ITU-T G.707 Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH)

ITU-T G.783 Characteristics of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH) Equipment Functional Blocks

ANSI T1.105 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic
Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates and Formats

ANSI T1.105.02 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Payload
Mappings

ETSI EN 300 417-9-1 Transmission and Multiplexing (TM) Generic
requirements of transport functionality of equipment Part 9:
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) concatenated path layer
functions. Subpart 1: Requirements

Work in ITU-T, ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 has ensured global
standards alignment.

With the completion of a standard for SONET/SDH SPE/VC virtual
concatenation it is appropriate IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to document the use of this standard
for PPP transport over SONET/SDH, which is the intent of this
document.

5. Security Considerations

The security discussion in RFC 2615 also applies be
added to this document.
No new security features have been explicitly introduced or removed
compared to RFC 2615.

Jones Expires June 2002 6
=0C
6. References

[1] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", RFC
1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.

[2] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP in HDLC-like Framing, "RFC 1662,
Daydreamer, July 1994.

[3] Malis, A. & Simpson, W., "PPP over SONET/SDH, "RFC 2615, June
1999.

[4] Bellcore Publication GR-253-Core "Synchronous Optical Network
(SONET) Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria" January 1999

[5] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) - Basic Description including Multiplex Structure,
Rates and Formats" ANSI T1.105-1995

[6] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) - Payload Mappings" ANSI T1.105.02-1998

[7] ITU-T Recommendation G.707 "Network Node Interface for the
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy" 1996

7. Acknowledgments

Huub van Helvoort, Maarten Vissers (Lucent Technologies), Paul
Langner (Lucent Microelectronics), Trevor Wilson (Nortel Networks),
Mark Carson (Nortel Networks) and James McKee (Nortel Networks) for
their contribution to deleted from the development of virtual concatenation of
SONET/SDH payloads.

8. Author's Addresses

Nevin Jones
Agere Systems
Broadband IC Systems Architecture
Rm. 7E-321
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Email: nrjones@agere.com

Chris Murton
Nortel Networks Harlow Laboratories
London Road, Harlow,
Essex, CM17 9NA UK
Email: murton@nortelnetworks.com

Jones Expires June 2002 7
=0C
9. Copyright Notice

This document and translations of it may RFC-DIST distribution list should
be copied and furnished sent to
others, and derivative works that comment RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation EMAIL may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as obtained by removing
the copyright notice or references sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the Internet Society or other
Internet organisations, except as needed message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the purpose
author of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined RFC in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, question, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are perpetual and will not for
unlimited distribution.echo
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Jones Expires June 2002 8
=0C sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.