| < draft-many-ip-optical-framework-02.txt | draft-many-ip-optical-framework-03.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bala Rajagopalan | Bala Rajagopalan | |||
| Internet Draft Tellium, Inc. | Internet Draft Tellium, Inc. | |||
| draft-many-ip-optical-framework-02.txt James Luciani | draft-many-ip-optical-framework-03.txt James Luciani | |||
| Expires on: 5/14/2001 Tollbridge Technologies | Expires on: 9/3/2001 Tollbridge Technologies | |||
| Daniel Awduche | Daniel Awduche | |||
| UUNET (MCI Worldcom) | UUNET (MCI Worldcom) | |||
| Brad Cain, Bilel Jamoussi | Brad Cain, Bilel Jamoussi | |||
| Nortel Networks | Nortel Networks | |||
| Debanjan Saha | Debanjan Saha | |||
| Tellium, Inc. | Tellium, Inc. | |||
| IP over Optical Networks: A Framework | IP over Optical Networks: A Framework | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| skipping to change at line 49 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 5 ¶ | |||
| high-speed routers interconnected by optical core networks. A | high-speed routers interconnected by optical core networks. A | |||
| consensus has emerged in the industry on utilizing IP-based | consensus has emerged in the industry on utilizing IP-based | |||
| protocols for the optical control plane. At the same time, there is | protocols for the optical control plane. At the same time, there is | |||
| ongoing activity in defining architectural models for IP transport | ongoing activity in defining architectural models for IP transport | |||
| over optical networks, specifically, the routing and signaling | over optical networks, specifically, the routing and signaling | |||
| aspects. This draft defines a framework for IP over Optical | aspects. This draft defines a framework for IP over Optical | |||
| networks, considering both the IP-based control plane for optical | networks, considering both the IP-based control plane for optical | |||
| networks as well as IP transport over optical networks (together | networks as well as IP transport over optical networks (together | |||
| referred to as "IP over optical networks"). | referred to as "IP over optical networks"). | |||
| Expires on 5/24/2001 Page 1 of 36 | ||||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| ----------------- | ----------------- | |||
| 1. Abstract ------------------------------------------------- 1 | 1. Abstract...................................................1 | |||
| 2. Conventions Used in this Document ------------------------- 3 | 2. Conventions used in this document..........................3 | |||
| 3. Introduction ---------------------------------------------- 3 | 3. Introduction...............................................3 | |||
| 4. Terminology and Concepts ---------------------------------- 4 | 4. Terminology and Concepts...................................4 | |||
| 5. The Network Model ----------------------------------------- 7 | 5. The Network Model..........................................8 | |||
| 5.1 Network Interconnection -------------------------------- 7 | 5.1 Network Interconnection................................8 | |||
| 5.2 Control Structure -------------------------------------- 9 | 5.2 Control Structure.....................................10 | |||
| 6. IP over Optical Service Models ---------------------------- 9 | 6. IP over Optical Service Models and Requirements...........11 | |||
| 6.1 Domain Services Model ---------------------------------- 10 | 6.1 Domain Services Model.................................11 | |||
| 6.2 Unified Services Model --------------------------------- 12 | 6.2 Unified Service Model.................................13 | |||
| 6.3 Which Service Model? ----------------------------------- 13 | 6.3 Which Service Model?..................................14 | |||
| 6.4 What are the Possible Services? ------------------------ 13 | 6.4 What are the Possible Services?........................14 | |||
| 7. IP Transport over Optical Networks ----------------------- 14 | 7. IP transport over Optical Networks........................14 | |||
| 7.1 Interconnection Models --------------------------------- 14 | 7.1 Interconnection Models.................................15 | |||
| 7.2 Routing Approaches ------------------------------------- 15 | 7.2 Routing Approaches.....................................16 | |||
| 7.3 Signaling Related ------------------------------------- 18 | 7.3 Signaling-Related......................................19 | |||
| 7.4 End-to-End Protection Models --------------------------- 19 | 7.4 End-to-End Protection Models..........................20 | |||
| 8. IP-Based Optical Control Plane Issues -------------------- 20 | 8. IP-based Optical Control Plane Issues.....................22 | |||
| 8.1 Addressing -------------------------------------------- 21 | 8.1 Addressing............................................22 | |||
| 8.2 Neighbor Discovery ------------------------------------- 22 | 8.2 Neighbor Discovery....................................23 | |||
| 8.3 Topology Discovery --------------------------------------23 | 8.3 Topology Discovery....................................24 | |||
| 8.4 Restoration Models ------------------------------------- 24 | 8.4 Restoration Models....................................25 | |||
| 8.5 Route Computation ------------------------------------- 25 | 8.5 Route Computation.....................................26 | |||
| 8.6 Signaling Issues -------------------------------------- 27 | 8.6 Signaling Issues......................................28 | |||
| 8.7 Optical Internetworking ------------------------------- 29 | 8.7 Optical Internetworking..............................30 | |||
| 9. Other Issues --------------------------------------------- 30 | 9. Other Issues..............................................31 | |||
| 9.1 WDM and TDM in the Same Network ------------------------ 30 | 9.1 WDM and TDM in the Same Network......................31 | |||
| 9.2 Wavelength Conversion ---------------------------------- 30 | 9.2 Wavelength Conversion................................31 | |||
| 9.3 Service Provider Peering Points ------------------------ 31 | 9.3 Service Provider Peering Points......................32 | |||
| 9.4 Rate of Lightpath Set-Up ------------------------------- 31 | 9.4 Rate of Lightpath Set-Up.............................32 | |||
| 9.5 Distributed vs Centralized Provisioning --------------- 32 | 9.5 Distributed vs. Centralized Provisioning.............33 | |||
| 10. Evolution Path for IP over Optical Architecture --------- 33 | 10. Evolution Path for IP over Optical Architecture.........34 | |||
| 11. Security Considerations --------------------------------- 33 | 11. Security Considerations..................................34 | |||
| 12. Summary and Conclusions --------------------------------- 34 | 12. Summary and Conclusions..................................35 | |||
| 13. References ---------------------------------------------- 34 | 13. References...............................................35 | |||
| 14. Acknowledgements ---------------------------------------- 35 | 14. Acknowledgments..........................................36 | |||
| 15. Author's Addresses.......................................37 | ||||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 2 of 36 | ||||
| 2. Conventions used in this document | 2. Conventions used in this document | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in | |||
| this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. | this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. | |||
| 3. Introduction | 3. Introduction | |||
| Optical network technologies are evolving rapidly in terms of | Optical network technologies are evolving rapidly in terms of | |||
| functions and capabilities. The increasing importance of optical | functions and capabilities. The increasing importance of optical | |||
| skipping to change at line 144 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶ | |||
| of their pros and cons. | of their pros and cons. | |||
| Thus, there are two fundamental issues related to IP over optical | Thus, there are two fundamental issues related to IP over optical | |||
| networks. The first is the adaptation and reuse of IP control plane | networks. The first is the adaptation and reuse of IP control plane | |||
| protocols within the optical network control plane, irrespective of | protocols within the optical network control plane, irrespective of | |||
| the types of digital clients that utilize the optical network. The | the types of digital clients that utilize the optical network. The | |||
| second is the transport of IP traffic through an optical network | second is the transport of IP traffic through an optical network | |||
| together with the control and coordination issues that arise | together with the control and coordination issues that arise | |||
| therefrom. | therefrom. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 3 of 36 | ||||
| This draft defines a framework for IP over optical networks covering | This draft defines a framework for IP over optical networks covering | |||
| the requirements and mechanisms for establishing an IP-centric | the requirements and mechanisms for establishing an IP-centric | |||
| optical control plane, and the architectural aspects of IP transport | optical control plane, and the architectural aspects of IP transport | |||
| over optical networks. In this regard, it is recognized that the | over optical networks. In this regard, it is recognized that the | |||
| specific capabilities required for IP over optical networks would | specific capabilities required for IP over optical networks would | |||
| depend on the services expected at the IP-optical interface as well | depend on the services expected at the IP-optical interface as well | |||
| as the optical sub-network interfaces. Depending on the specific | as the optical sub-network interfaces. Depending on the specific | |||
| operational requirements, a progression of capabilities is possible, | operational requirements, a progression of capabilities is possible, | |||
| reflecting increasingly sophisticated interactions at these | reflecting increasingly sophisticated interactions at these | |||
| interfaces. This draft therefore advocates the definition of | interfaces. This draft therefore advocates the definition of | |||
| skipping to change at line 184 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 46 ¶ | |||
| relation to IP over optical networks. The approaches described in | relation to IP over optical networks. The approaches described in | |||
| Section 7 and 8 range from the relatively simple to the | Section 7 and 8 range from the relatively simple to the | |||
| sophisticated. Section 10 describes a possible evolution path for IP | sophisticated. Section 10 describes a possible evolution path for IP | |||
| over optical networking capabilities in terms of increasingly | over optical networking capabilities in terms of increasingly | |||
| sophisticated functionality supported. Section 11 considers security | sophisticated functionality supported. Section 11 considers security | |||
| aspects. Finally, summary and conclusion are presented in Section | aspects. Finally, summary and conclusion are presented in Section | |||
| 12. | 12. | |||
| 4. Terminology and Concepts | 4. Terminology and Concepts | |||
| This section introduces some terminology for describing common | This section introduces the terminology pertinent to this framework | |||
| concepts in IP over optical networks pertinent to this framework. | and some related concepts. | |||
| WDM | WDM | |||
| --- | --- | |||
| Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) is a technology that allows | Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) is a technology that allows | |||
| multiple optical signals operating at different wavelengths to be | multiple optical signals operating at different wavelengths to be | |||
| multiplexed onto a single fiber so that they can be transported in | multiplexed onto a single fiber so that they can be transported in | |||
| parallel through the fiber. In general, each optical wavelength may | parallel through the fiber. In general, each optical wavelength may | |||
| carry digital client payloads at a different data rate (e.g., OC-3c, | carry digital client payloads at a different data rate (e.g., OC-3c, | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 4 of 36 | ||||
| OC-12c, OC- 48c, OC-192c, etc.) and in a different format (SONET, | OC-12c, OC- 48c, OC-192c, etc.) and in a different format (SONET, | |||
| Ethernet, ATM, etc.) | Ethernet, ATM, etc.) For example, there are many commercial WDM | |||
| networks in existence today that support a mix of SONET signals | ||||
| operating at OC-48c (approximately 2.5 Gbps) and OC-192 | ||||
| (approximately 10 Gbps) over a single optical fiber. An optical | ||||
| system with WDM capability can achieve parallel transmission of | ||||
| multiple wavelengths gracefully while maintaining high system | ||||
| performance and reliability. In the near future, commercial WDM | ||||
| systems are expected to concurrently carry more than 160 | ||||
| wavelengths at data rates of OC-192c and above, for a total of 1.6 | ||||
| Tbps or more. The term WDM will be used in this document to refer | ||||
| to both WDM and DWDM (Dense WDM). | ||||
| In general, it is worth noting that WDM links are affected by the | ||||
| following factors, which may introduce impairments into the optical | ||||
| signal path: | ||||
| 1. The number of wavelengths on a single fiber. | ||||
| 2. The serial bit rate per wavelength. | ||||
| 3. The type of fiber. | ||||
| 4. The amplification mechanism. | ||||
| 5. The number of nodes through which the signal passes before | ||||
| it reaches the egress node or before regeneration. | ||||
| All these factors and others not mentioned here constitute domain | ||||
| specific features of optical transport networks. As noted in [1], | ||||
| these features should be taken into account in developing standards | ||||
| based solutions for IP over optical networks. | ||||
| Optical cross-connect (OXC) | Optical cross-connect (OXC) | |||
| --------------------------- | --------------------------- | |||
| An OXC is a space-division switch that can switch an optical data | An OXC is a space-division switch that can switch an optical data | |||
| stream on an input port to a output port. Such a switch may have | stream on an input port to a output port. Such a switch may have | |||
| optical-electrical conversion at the input port and electrical- | optical-electrical conversion at the input port and electrical- | |||
| optical conversion at the output port, or it can be all-optical. An | optical conversion at the output port, or it can be all-optical. An | |||
| OXC is assumed to have a control-plane processor that implements | OXC is assumed to have a control-plane processor that implements | |||
| signaling and routing protocols necessary for realizing an optical | signaling and routing protocols necessary for realizing an optical | |||
| skipping to change at line 249 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶ | |||
| This framework does not address the interaction between the optical | This framework does not address the interaction between the optical | |||
| sub-network and the OMS, or between the OMS and OTS layer networks. | sub-network and the OMS, or between the OMS and OTS layer networks. | |||
| Optical mesh network | Optical mesh network | |||
| -------------------- | -------------------- | |||
| An optical mesh network, as considered in draft, is a mesh-connected | An optical mesh network, as considered in draft, is a mesh-connected | |||
| collection of optical sub-networks. | collection of optical sub-networks. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 5 of 36 | ||||
| Wavelength continuity property | Wavelength continuity property | |||
| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | |||
| A lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength continuity property if | A lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength continuity property if | |||
| it is transported over the same wavelength end-to-end. Wavelength | it is transported over the same wavelength end-to-end. Wavelength | |||
| continuity is required in optical networks with no wavelength | continuity is required in optical networks with no wavelength | |||
| conversion feature. | conversion feature. | |||
| Wavelength path | ||||
| --------------- | ||||
| A lightpath that satisfies the wavelength continuity property is | ||||
| called a wavelength path. | ||||
| Opaque vs. transparent optical networks | ||||
| --------------------------------------- | ||||
| A transparent optical network is an optical network in which each | ||||
| transit node along a path passes optical transmission without | ||||
| transducing the optical signal into an electrical signal and back | ||||
| to an optical signal. More generally, all intermediate nodes in a | ||||
| transparent optical network will pass optical signals without | ||||
| performing retiming and reshaping and thus such nodes are unaware of | ||||
| many characteristics of the carried signals. One could, for | ||||
| example, carry analog signals together with digital signals | ||||
| (potentially of varying bit rate) on different wavelengths over such | ||||
| a network. | ||||
| Note that re-powering of signals at transit nodes is potentially | ||||
| permitted in transparent optical networks. This is a result of the | ||||
| availability of all optical amplification devices such as Erbium | ||||
| Doped Fiber Amplifiers (EDFAs). | ||||
| In opaque optical networks, by comparison, transit nodes will | ||||
| perform manipulation of the optical signals which they are carrying. | ||||
| An example of such manipulation would be 3R (reshaping, retiming, | ||||
| regeneration/amplification). | ||||
| Trust domain | Trust domain | |||
| ------------ | ------------ | |||
| A trust domain is a network under a single technical administration | A trust domain is a network under a single technical administration | |||
| in which most nodes in the network are considered to be secure or | in which most nodes in the network are considered to be secure or | |||
| trusted in some fashion. An example of a trust domain is a campus | trusted in some fashion. An example of a trust domain is a campus | |||
| or corporate network in which all routing protocol packets are | or corporate network in which all routing protocol packets are | |||
| considered to be authentic, without the need for additional security | considered to be authentic, without the need for additional security | |||
| schemes to prevent unauthorized access to the network | schemes to prevent unauthorized access to the network | |||
| infrastructure. Generally, the "single" administrative control rule | infrastructure. Generally, the "single" administrative control rule | |||
| skipping to change at line 295 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶ | |||
| into some nicely manageable intervals, it may be feasible to | into some nicely manageable intervals, it may be feasible to | |||
| consider each quanta of time within a given wavelength as a flow. | consider each quanta of time within a given wavelength as a flow. | |||
| Traffic Trunk | Traffic Trunk | |||
| ------------- | ------------- | |||
| A abstraction of traffic flow that follows the same path between two | A abstraction of traffic flow that follows the same path between two | |||
| access points which allows some characteristics and attributes of | access points which allows some characteristics and attributes of | |||
| the traffic to be parameterized. | the traffic to be parameterized. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 6 of 36 | ||||
| 5. The Network Model | 5. The Network Model | |||
| 5.1 Network Interconnection | 5.1 Network Interconnection | |||
| The network model considered in this draft consists of IP routers | The network model considered in this draft consists of IP routers | |||
| attached to an optical core network, and connected to their peers | attached to an optical core network, and connected to their peers | |||
| over dynamically established switched lightpaths. The optical core | over dynamically established switched lightpaths. The optical core | |||
| itself is assumed to be incapable of processing individual IP | itself is assumed to be incapable of processing individual IP | |||
| packets. | packets. | |||
| skipping to change at line 348 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶ | |||
| same set of intermediate ports as the forward path. | same set of intermediate ports as the forward path. | |||
| Multiple data streams output from an OXC may be multiplexed onto an | Multiple data streams output from an OXC may be multiplexed onto an | |||
| optical link using WDM technology. The WDM functionality may exist | optical link using WDM technology. The WDM functionality may exist | |||
| outside of the OXC, and be transparent to the OXC. Or, this function | outside of the OXC, and be transparent to the OXC. Or, this function | |||
| may be built into the OXC. In the latter case, the cross-connect | may be built into the OXC. In the latter case, the cross-connect | |||
| table (conceptually) consists of pairs of the form, <{input port | table (conceptually) consists of pairs of the form, <{input port | |||
| i, Lambda(j)}, {output port k, Lambda(l)}>. This indicates that the | i, Lambda(j)}, {output port k, Lambda(l)}>. This indicates that the | |||
| data stream received on wavelength Lambda(j) over input port i is | data stream received on wavelength Lambda(j) over input port i is | |||
| switched to output port k on Lambda(l). Automated establishment of | switched to output port k on Lambda(l). Automated establishment of | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 7 of 36 | ||||
| lightpaths involves setting up the cross-connect table entries in | lightpaths involves setting up the cross-connect table entries in | |||
| the appropriate OXCs in a coordinated manner such that the desired | the appropriate OXCs in a coordinated manner such that the desired | |||
| physical path is realized. | physical path is realized. | |||
| Optical Network | Optical Network | |||
| +---------------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------------+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +--------------+ | | | +--------------+ | | | |||
| | | | +------------+ +------------+ | | | | | +------------+ +------------+ | | |||
| | IP | | | | | | | | | IP | | | | | | | | |||
| skipping to change at line 397 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶ | |||
| between a pair of IP routers before they can communicate. This | between a pair of IP routers before they can communicate. This | |||
| lightpath might traverse multiple optical sub-networks and be | lightpath might traverse multiple optical sub-networks and be | |||
| subject to different provisioning and restoration procedures in each | subject to different provisioning and restoration procedures in each | |||
| sub-network. The IP-based control plane issue is that of designing | sub-network. The IP-based control plane issue is that of designing | |||
| standard signaling and routing protocols for coherent end-to-end | standard signaling and routing protocols for coherent end-to-end | |||
| provisioning and restoration of lightpaths across multiple optical | provisioning and restoration of lightpaths across multiple optical | |||
| sub-networks. Similarly, IP transport over such an optical network | sub-networks. Similarly, IP transport over such an optical network | |||
| involves determining IP reachability and seamless establishment of | involves determining IP reachability and seamless establishment of | |||
| paths from one IP endpoint to another over an optical core. | paths from one IP endpoint to another over an optical core. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 8 of 36 | ||||
| 5.2 Control Structure | 5.2 Control Structure | |||
| There are two logical control interfaces identified in Figure 1. | There are two logical control interfaces identified in Figure 1. | |||
| These are the client-optical network interface, and the optical sub- | These are the client-optical network interface, and the optical sub- | |||
| network interface. These interfaces are also referred to as the | network interface. These interfaces are also referred to as the | |||
| User-Network Interface (UNI) and the Network-Network Interface(NNI). | User-Network Interface (UNI) and the Network-Network Interface(NNI). | |||
| The distinction between these interfaces arises out of the type and | The distinction between these interfaces arises out of the type and | |||
| amount of control flow across them. The UNI represents a technology | amount of control flow across them. The UNI represents a technology | |||
| boundary between the client and optical networks. Thus, the control | boundary between the client and optical networks. Thus, the control | |||
| flow across the UNI is dependent of the set of services defined | flow across the UNI is dependent of the set of services defined | |||
| skipping to change at line 432 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶ | |||
| then routing information is not exchanged across it, or such | then routing information is not exchanged across it, or such | |||
| information may be exchanged across it with very explicit | information may be exchanged across it with very explicit | |||
| restrictions (including for example abstraction, filtration, etc). | restrictions (including for example abstraction, filtration, etc). | |||
| Thus, different relationships (e.g., peer or over-lay, Section 7) | Thus, different relationships (e.g., peer or over-lay, Section 7) | |||
| may occur across private and public logical interfaces. | may occur across private and public logical interfaces. | |||
| The physical control structure used to realize these logical | The physical control structure used to realize these logical | |||
| interfaces may vary. For instance, for the UNI, some of the | interfaces may vary. For instance, for the UNI, some of the | |||
| possibilities are: | possibilities are: | |||
| 1.Direct interface: An in-band or out-of-band IP control channel | 1. Direct interface: An in-band or out-of-band IP control channel | |||
| (IPCC) may be implemented between an edge router and each OXC | (IPCC) may be implemented between an edge router and each OXC | |||
| that it connects to. This control channel is used for exchanging | that it connects to. This control channel is used for exchanging | |||
| signaling and routing messages between the router and the OXC. | signaling and routing messages between the router and the OXC. | |||
| With a direct interface, the edge router and the OXC it connects | With a direct interface, the edge router and the OXC it connects | |||
| to are peers in the control plane. This is shown in Figure 2. The | to are peers in the control plane. This is shown in Figure 2. The | |||
| type of routing and signaling information exchanged across the | type of routing and signaling information exchanged across the | |||
| direct interface would vary depending on the service definition. | direct interface would vary depending on the service definition. | |||
| This issue is dealt with in the next section. Some choices for | This issue is dealt with in the next section. Some choices for | |||
| the routing protocol are OSPF/ISIS (with traffic engineering | the routing protocol are OSPF/ISIS (with traffic engineering | |||
| extensions) or BGP. Other directory-based routing information | extensions) or BGP. Other directory-based routing information | |||
| exchanges are also possible. Some of the signaling protocol | exchanges are also possible. Some of the signaling protocol | |||
| choices are adaptations of RSVP-TE or CR-LDP. The details of how | choices are adaptations of RSVP-TE or CR-LDP. The details of how | |||
| the IP control channel is realized is outside the scope of this | the IP control channel is realized is outside the scope of this | |||
| draft. | draft. | |||
| 2.Indirect interface: An out-of-band IP control channel may be | 2. Indirect interface: An out-of-band IP control channel may be | |||
| implemented between the client and a device in the optical network | implemented between the client and a device in the optical network | |||
| to signal service requests and responses. For instance, a | to signal service requests and responses. For instance, a | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 9 of 36 | ||||
| management system or a server in the optical network may receive | management system or a server in the optical network may receive | |||
| service requests from clients. Similarly, out-of-band signaling | service requests from clients. Similarly, out-of-band signaling | |||
| may be used between management systems in client and optical | may be used between management systems in client and optical | |||
| networks to signal service requests. In these cases, there is no | networks to signal service requests. In these cases, there is no | |||
| direct control interaction between clients and respective | direct control interaction between clients and respective | |||
| OXCs. One reason to have an indirect interface would be that the | OXCs. One reason to have an indirect interface would be that the | |||
| OXCs and/or clients do not support a direct signaling interface. | OXCs and/or clients do not support a direct signaling interface. | |||
| 3. Provisioned interface: In this case, the optical network services | 3. Provisioned interface: In this case, the optical network services | |||
| are manually provisioned and there is no control interactions | are manually provisioned and there is no control interactions | |||
| skipping to change at line 505 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 5 ¶ | |||
| interface (which can also be applied at the optical sub-network | interface (which can also be applied at the optical sub-network | |||
| interface). These models are as follows. | interface). These models are as follows. | |||
| 6.1 Domain Services Model | 6.1 Domain Services Model | |||
| Under this model, the optical network primarily offers high | Under this model, the optical network primarily offers high | |||
| bandwidth connectivity in the form of lightpaths [2]. Standardized | bandwidth connectivity in the form of lightpaths [2]. Standardized | |||
| signaling across the UNI (Figure 1) is used to invoke the following | signaling across the UNI (Figure 1) is used to invoke the following | |||
| services: | services: | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 10 of 36 | 1. Lightpath creation: This service allows a lightpath with the | |||
| 1. Lightpath creation: This service allows a lightpath with the | specified attributes to be created between a pair of termination | |||
| specified attributes to be created between a pair of termination | points in the optical network. Lightpath creation may be subject | |||
| points in the optical network. Lightpath creation may be subject | to network-defined policies (e.g., connectivity restrictions) and | |||
| to network-defined policies (e.g., connectivity restrictions) and | security procedures. | |||
| security procedures. | ||||
| 2. Lightpath deletion: This service allows an existing lightpath to | 2. Lightpath deletion: This service allows an existing lightpath to | |||
| be deleted. | be deleted. | |||
| 3. Lightpath modification: This service allows certain parameters of | 3. Lightpath modification: This service allows certain parameters of | |||
| the lightpath to be modified. | the lightpath to be modified. | |||
| 4. Lightpath status enquiry: This service allows the status of | 4. Lightpath status enquiry: This service allows the status of | |||
| certain parameters of the lightpath (referenced by its ID) to be | certain parameters of the lightpath (referenced by its ID) to be | |||
| queried by the router that created the lightpath. | queried by the router that created the lightpath. | |||
| Additionally, the following address resolution procedures may be | Additionally, the following address resolution procedures may be | |||
| made available over the UNI (more sophisticated routing information | made available over the UNI (more sophisticated routing information | |||
| exchange over the UNI is also possible, as described later and | exchange over the UNI is also possible, as described later and | |||
| covered in more detail in [3]): | covered in more detail in [3]): | |||
| 1. Client Registration: This allows a client to register its | 1. Client Registration: This allows a client to register its | |||
| address(es) and user group identifier(s) with the optical | address(es) and user group identifier(s) with the optical | |||
| network. The registered address may be of different types, IP, | network. The registered address may be of different types, IP, | |||
| ATM NSAP, E.164, etc. The optical network associates the client | ATM NSAP, E.164, etc. The optical network associates the client | |||
| skipping to change at line 558 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 5 ¶ | |||
| determine the static parameters of the interconnection with the | determine the static parameters of the interconnection with the | |||
| optical network, including the UNI signaling protocols supported. | optical network, including the UNI signaling protocols supported. | |||
| The protocols for neighbor and service discovery are different from | The protocols for neighbor and service discovery are different from | |||
| the UNI signaling protocol itself (for example, see LMP [4]). | the UNI signaling protocol itself (for example, see LMP [4]). | |||
| With regard to address resolution, the registration and de- | With regard to address resolution, the registration and de- | |||
| registration procedures may be implemented using service discovery | registration procedures may be implemented using service discovery | |||
| mechanisms. The query mechanism may be implemented as an additional | mechanisms. The query mechanism may be implemented as an additional | |||
| UNI signaling procedure. | UNI signaling procedure. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 11 of 36 | ||||
| Because a small set of well-defined services is offered across UNI, | Because a small set of well-defined services is offered across UNI, | |||
| the signaling protocol requirements are minimal. Specifically, the | the signaling protocol requirements are minimal. Specifically, the | |||
| signaling protocol is required to convey a few messages with certain | signaling protocol is required to convey a few messages with certain | |||
| attributes point-to-point between the router and the optical | attributes point-to-point between the router and the optical | |||
| network. Such a protocol may be based on RSVP-TE or LDP, or even a | network. Such a protocol may be based on RSVP-TE or LDP, or even a | |||
| messaging application over a TCP connection. | messaging application over a TCP connection. | |||
| The optical domain services model does not deal with the type and | The optical domain services model does not deal with the type and | |||
| nature of routing protocols within the optical network. Furthermore, | nature of routing protocols within the optical network. Furthermore, | |||
| the integration of multiple, optical sub-networks across NNI will | the integration of multiple, optical sub-networks across NNI will | |||
| skipping to change at line 611 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 5 ¶ | |||
| optical networks in routing protocols such as OSPF [6]. In essence, | optical networks in routing protocols such as OSPF [6]. In essence, | |||
| once a lightpath is established across an optical network between | once a lightpath is established across an optical network between | |||
| two edge routers, it can be advertised as a forwarding adjacency (a | two edge routers, it can be advertised as a forwarding adjacency (a | |||
| virtual link) between these routers. Thus, from a data plane point | virtual link) between these routers. Thus, from a data plane point | |||
| of view, the lightpaths result in a overlay between edge routers. | of view, the lightpaths result in a overlay between edge routers. | |||
| The decisions as to when to create such lightpaths, and the | The decisions as to when to create such lightpaths, and the | |||
| bandwidth management for these lightpaths is identical in both the | bandwidth management for these lightpaths is identical in both the | |||
| domain services model and the unified service model. The routing and | domain services model and the unified service model. The routing and | |||
| signaling models for unified services is described in Section 7. | signaling models for unified services is described in Section 7. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 12 of 36 | ||||
| 6.3 Which Service Model? | 6.3 Which Service Model? | |||
| The pros and cons of the above service models can be debated at | The pros and cons of the above service models can be debated at | |||
| length, but the approach recommended in this framework is to define | length, but the approach recommended in this framework is to define | |||
| routing and signaling mechanisms in support of both. As pointed out | routing and signaling mechanisms in support of both. As pointed out | |||
| above, signaling for service request can be unified to cover both | above, signaling for service request can be unified to cover both | |||
| models. The developments in GMPLS signaling [7] for the unified | models. The developments in GMPLS signaling [7] for the unified | |||
| service model and its adoption for UNI signaling under the domain | service model and its adoption for UNI signaling under the domain | |||
| services model [8] essentially supports this view. The significant | services model [8] essentially supports this view. The significant | |||
| difference between the service models, however, is in routing | difference between the service models, however, is in routing | |||
| skipping to change at line 665 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 5 ¶ | |||
| based control plane [1] is used. Depending on the service | based control plane [1] is used. Depending on the service | |||
| model(Section 6), however, the control planes in the IP and optical | model(Section 6), however, the control planes in the IP and optical | |||
| networks can be loosely or tightly coupled. This coupling determines | networks can be loosely or tightly coupled. This coupling determines | |||
| o the details of the topology and routing information advertised by | o the details of the topology and routing information advertised by | |||
| the optical network across UNI; | the optical network across UNI; | |||
| o Level of control that IP routers can exercise in selecting | o Level of control that IP routers can exercise in selecting | |||
| specific paths for connections across the optical network; and | specific paths for connections across the optical network; and | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 13 of 36 | ||||
| o Policies regarding the dynamic provisioning of optical paths | o Policies regarding the dynamic provisioning of optical paths | |||
| between routers. This includes access control, accounting and | between routers. This includes access control, accounting and | |||
| security issues. | security issues. | |||
| The following interconnection models are then possible: | The following interconnection models are then possible: | |||
| 7.1 Interconnection Models | 7.1 Interconnection Models | |||
| 7.1.1 The Peer Model | 7.1.1 The Peer Model | |||
| skipping to change at line 715 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 5 ¶ | |||
| Under the augmented model, there are actually separate routing | Under the augmented model, there are actually separate routing | |||
| instances in the IP and optical domains, but information from one | instances in the IP and optical domains, but information from one | |||
| routing instance is passed through the other routing instance. For | routing instance is passed through the other routing instance. For | |||
| example, external IP addresses could be carried within the optical | example, external IP addresses could be carried within the optical | |||
| routing protocols to allow reachability information to be passed to | routing protocols to allow reachability information to be passed to | |||
| IP clients. | IP clients. | |||
| The routing approaches corresponding to these interconnection models | The routing approaches corresponding to these interconnection models | |||
| are described below. | are described below. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 14 of 36 | ||||
| 7.2 Routing Approaches | 7.2 Routing Approaches | |||
| 7.2.1 Integrated Routing | 7.2.1 Integrated Routing | |||
| This routing approach supports the peer model described above. Under | This routing approach supports the peer model described above. Under | |||
| this approach, the IP and optical networks are assumed to run the | this approach, the IP and optical networks are assumed to run the | |||
| same instance of an IP routing protocol, e.g., OSPF with suitable | same instance of an IP routing protocol, e.g., OSPF with suitable | |||
| "optical" extensions. These extensions must capture optical link | "optical" extensions. These extensions must capture optical link | |||
| parameters, and any constraints that are specific to optical | parameters, and any constraints that are specific to optical | |||
| networks. The topology and link state information maintained by all | networks. The topology and link state information maintained by all | |||
| skipping to change at line 770 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 5 ¶ | |||
| port is no longer available for creating a lightpath. Thus, as FAs | port is no longer available for creating a lightpath. Thus, as FAs | |||
| are created, an overlaid set of virtual links is introduced into the | are created, an overlaid set of virtual links is introduced into the | |||
| link state representation, replacing the links previously advertised | link state representation, replacing the links previously advertised | |||
| at the IP-Optical interface. Finally, the details of the optical | at the IP-Optical interface. Finally, the details of the optical | |||
| network captured in the link state representation is replaced by a | network captured in the link state representation is replaced by a | |||
| network of FAs. In this regard, there is a great deal of similarity | network of FAs. In this regard, there is a great deal of similarity | |||
| between integrated routing and domain-specific routing (described | between integrated routing and domain-specific routing (described | |||
| next). Both ultimately deal with the creation of the overlaid | next). Both ultimately deal with the creation of the overlaid | |||
| lightpath topology to meet the traffic engineering objectives. | lightpath topology to meet the traffic engineering objectives. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 15 of 36 | ||||
| 7.2.2 Domain-Specific Routing | 7.2.2 Domain-Specific Routing | |||
| This routing approach supports the augmented interconnection model. | This routing approach supports the augmented interconnection model. | |||
| Under this approach, routing within the optical and IP domains are | Under this approach, routing within the optical and IP domains are | |||
| separated, with a standard routing protocol running between domains. | separated, with a standard routing protocol running between domains. | |||
| This is similar to the IP inter-domain routing model. Two choices | This is similar to the IP inter-domain routing model. Two choices | |||
| for this are considered. | for this are considered. | |||
| 7.2.2.1 Domain-Specific Routing using BGP | 7.2.2.1 Domain-Specific Routing using BGP | |||
| skipping to change at line 824 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 5 ¶ | |||
| advertised by the border OXCs must be accompanied by some VPN | advertised by the border OXCs must be accompanied by some VPN | |||
| identification (for example, VPN IPv4 addresses, as defined in [10], | identification (for example, VPN IPv4 addresses, as defined in [10], | |||
| may be used). | may be used). | |||
| 7.2.2.2 Domain Specific Routing using OSPF/ISIS | 7.2.2.2 Domain Specific Routing using OSPF/ISIS | |||
| The routing information exchanged across the IP-optical UNI could be | The routing information exchanged across the IP-optical UNI could be | |||
| summarized using a hierarchical routing protocol such as OSPF/ISIS. | summarized using a hierarchical routing protocol such as OSPF/ISIS. | |||
| The following description is based on OSPF. | The following description is based on OSPF. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 16 of 36 | ||||
| OSPF supports a two-level hierarchical routing scheme through the | OSPF supports a two-level hierarchical routing scheme through the | |||
| use of OSPF areas. Routing within each area is flat, while detailed | use of OSPF areas. Routing within each area is flat, while detailed | |||
| knowledge of an areaÆs topology is hidden from all other areas. | knowledge of an areaÆs topology is hidden from all other areas. | |||
| Routers attached to two or more areas are called Area Border Routers | Routers attached to two or more areas are called Area Border Routers | |||
| (ABRs). ABRs propagate IP addressing information from one area to | (ABRs). ABRs propagate IP addressing information from one area to | |||
| another using summary LSAs. Within an OSPF routing domain, all areas | another using summary LSAs. Within an OSPF routing domain, all areas | |||
| are attached directly to a special area called the OSPF backbone | are attached directly to a special area called the OSPF backbone | |||
| area. The exchange of information between areas can be controlled | area. The exchange of information between areas can be controlled | |||
| to implement domain specific routing in each area. For instance, the | to implement domain specific routing in each area. For instance, the | |||
| optical network can be a collection of one or more areas in which | optical network can be a collection of one or more areas in which | |||
| skipping to change at line 875 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 5 ¶ | |||
| adjacencies within VPNs for a VPN-wide routing scheme, for example, | adjacencies within VPNs for a VPN-wide routing scheme, for example, | |||
| OSPF. With this approach, an edge router could first determine other | OSPF. With this approach, an edge router could first determine other | |||
| edge routers of interest by querying the registry. After it obtains | edge routers of interest by querying the registry. After it obtains | |||
| the appropriate addresses, an initial overlay lightpath topology may | the appropriate addresses, an initial overlay lightpath topology may | |||
| be formed. Routing adjacencies may then be established across the | be formed. Routing adjacencies may then be established across the | |||
| lightpaths and further routing information may be exchanged to | lightpaths and further routing information may be exchanged to | |||
| establish VPN-wide routing. | establish VPN-wide routing. | |||
| Routing approaches in optical networks are further described in [3]. | Routing approaches in optical networks are further described in [3]. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 17 of 36 | ||||
| 7.3 Signaling-Related | 7.3 Signaling-Related | |||
| 7.3.1 The Role of MPLS | 7.3.1 The Role of MPLS | |||
| It is possible to model wavelengths, and potentially TDM channels | It is possible to model wavelengths, and potentially TDM channels | |||
| within a wavelength as "labels". This concept was proposed in [1], | within a wavelength as "labels". This concept was proposed in [1], | |||
| and ôgeneralizedö MPLS (GMPLS) mechanisms for realizing this are | and "Generalized" MPLS (GMPLS) mechanisms for realizing this are | |||
| described in [7]. MPLS signaling protocols with traffic engineering | described in [7]. MPLS signaling protocols with traffic engineering | |||
| extensions, such as RSVP-TE and CR-LDP can be used for signaling | extensions, such as RSVP-TE and CR-LDP can be used for signaling | |||
| lightpath requests. In the case of the domain services model, these | lightpath requests. In the case of the domain services model, these | |||
| protocols can be adapted for UNI signaling [11, 12]. In the case of | protocols can be adapted for UNI signaling [11, 12]. In the case of | |||
| the unified services model, lightpath establishment occurs to | the unified services model, lightpath establishment occurs to | |||
| support end-to-end LSP establishment using these protocols (with | support end-to-end LSP establishment using these protocols (with | |||
| suitable GMPLS enhancements [13, 14]). | suitable GMPLS enhancements [13, 14]). | |||
| 7.3.2 Signaling Models | 7.3.2 Signaling Models | |||
| skipping to change at line 928 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 4 ¶ | |||
| Figure 3: Domain Services Signaling Model | Figure 3: Domain Services Signaling Model | |||
| With the unified services model, the addressing is common in the IP | With the unified services model, the addressing is common in the IP | |||
| and optical networks and the respective signaling control are | and optical networks and the respective signaling control are | |||
| related, as shown in Figure 4. It is understood that GMPLS signaling | related, as shown in Figure 4. It is understood that GMPLS signaling | |||
| is implemented in the IP and optical networks, using suitably | is implemented in the IP and optical networks, using suitably | |||
| enhanced RSVP-TE and CR-LDP protocols. But the semantics of services | enhanced RSVP-TE and CR-LDP protocols. But the semantics of services | |||
| within the optical network may be different from that in the IP | within the optical network may be different from that in the IP | |||
| network. As an example, the protection services offered in the | network. As an example, the protection services offered in the | |||
| optical network may be different from that end-to-end protection | optical network may be different from that end-to-end protection | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 18 of 36 | ||||
| services offered by the IP network. Another example is with regard | services offered by the IP network. Another example is with regard | |||
| to bandwidth. While the IP network may offer a continuum of | to bandwidth. While the IP network may offer a continuum of | |||
| bandwidths, the optical network will offer only discrete bandwidths. | bandwidths, the optical network will offer only discrete bandwidths. | |||
| Thus, the signaling attributes and services are defined | Thus, the signaling attributes and services are defined | |||
| independently for IP and optical networks. The routers at the edge | independently for IP and optical networks. The routers at the edge | |||
| of the optical network must therefore identify service boundaries | of the optical network must therefore identify service boundaries | |||
| and perform suitable translations in the signaling messages crossing | and perform suitable translations in the signaling messages crossing | |||
| the IP-optical boundary. This must occur even though the signaling | the IP-optical boundary. This must occur even though the signaling | |||
| control plane in both networks are GMPLS-based and there is tighter | control plane in both networks are GMPLS-based and there is tighter | |||
| coupling of the control plane as compared to the domain services | coupling of the control plane as compared to the domain services | |||
| skipping to change at line 960 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 34 ¶ | |||
| +-----+--+ +---+----+ | +-----+-+ +---+---+ | +--------+ | +-----+--+ +---+----+ | +-----+-+ +---+---+ | +--------+ | |||
| Common Address Space, Service Translation | Common Address Space, Service Translation | |||
| Figure 4: Unified Services Signaling Model | Figure 4: Unified Services Signaling Model | |||
| Thus, as illustrated in Figure 4, the signaling in the case of | Thus, as illustrated in Figure 4, the signaling in the case of | |||
| unified services is actually multi-layered. The layering is based on | unified services is actually multi-layered. The layering is based on | |||
| the technology and functionality. As an example, the specific | the technology and functionality. As an example, the specific | |||
| adaptations of GMPLS signaling for SONET layer (whose functionality | adaptations of GMPLS signaling for SONET layer (whose functionality | |||
| is transport) are described in [15]. | is transport) are described in [7]. | |||
| 7.4 End-to-End Protection Models | 7.4 End-to-End Protection Models | |||
| Suppose an LSP is established from an ingress IP router to an egress | Suppose an LSP is established from an ingress IP router to an egress | |||
| router across an ingress IP network, a transit optical network and | router across an ingress IP network, a transit optical network and | |||
| an egress IP network. If this LSP is to be afforded protection in | an egress IP network. If this LSP is to be afforded protection in | |||
| the IP layer, how is the service coordinated between the IP and | the IP layer, how is the service coordinated between the IP and | |||
| optical layers? | optical layers? | |||
| Under this scenario, there are two approaches to end-to-end | Under this scenario, there are two approaches to end-to-end | |||
| protection: | protection: | |||
| 7.4.1 Segment-Wise Protection | 7.4.1 Segment-Wise Protection | |||
| The protection services in the IP layer could utilize optical layer | The protection services in the IP layer could utilize optical layer | |||
| protection services for the LSP segment that traverses the optical | protection services for the LSP segment that traverses the optical | |||
| network. Thus, the end-to-end LSP would be treated as a | network. Thus, the end-to-end LSP would be treated as a | |||
| concatenation of three LSP segments from the protection point of | concatenation of three LSP segments from the protection point of | |||
| view: a segment in the ingress IP network, a segment in the optical | view: a segment in the ingress IP network, a segment in the optical | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 19 of 36 | ||||
| network and a segment in the egress IP network. The protection | network and a segment in the egress IP network. The protection | |||
| services at the IP layer for an end-to-end LSP must be mapped onto | services at the IP layer for an end-to-end LSP must be mapped onto | |||
| suitable protection services offered by the optical network. Suppose | suitable protection services offered by the optical network. Suppose | |||
| that 1+1 protection is offered to LSPs at the IP layer, i.e., each | that 1+1 protection is offered to LSPs at the IP layer, i.e., each | |||
| protected LSP has a pre-established hot stand-by. In case of a | protected LSP has a pre-established hot stand-by. In case of a | |||
| failure of the primary LSP, traffic can be immediately switched to | failure of the primary LSP, traffic can be immediately switched to | |||
| the stand-by. This type of protection can be realized end-to-end as | the stand-by. This type of protection can be realized end-to-end as | |||
| follows. With reference to Figure 5, let an LSP originate at | follows. With reference to Figure 5, let an LSP originate at | |||
| (ingress) router interface A and terminate at (egress) router | (ingress) router interface A and terminate at (egress) router | |||
| interface F. Under the first protection option, a primary path for | interface F. Under the first protection option, a primary path for | |||
| skipping to change at line 1033 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 4 ¶ | |||
| protection, whereas under the second choice, any protection service | protection, whereas under the second choice, any protection service | |||
| offered in the optical network is not utilized. Also, under the | offered in the optical network is not utilized. Also, under the | |||
| first choice, the protection in the optical network may apply | first choice, the protection in the optical network may apply | |||
| collectively to a number of IP LSPs. That is, with reference to | collectively to a number of IP LSPs. That is, with reference to | |||
| Figure 5, many LSPs may be aggregated into a single lightpath | Figure 5, many LSPs may be aggregated into a single lightpath | |||
| between C and D. The optical network protection may then be applied | between C and D. The optical network protection may then be applied | |||
| to all of them at once leading to some scalability. Under the second | to all of them at once leading to some scalability. Under the second | |||
| choice, each IP LSP must be separately protected. Finally, the first | choice, each IP LSP must be separately protected. Finally, the first | |||
| choice allows different restoration signaling to be implemented in | choice allows different restoration signaling to be implemented in | |||
| the IP and optical network. These restoration protocols are "patched | the IP and optical network. These restoration protocols are "patched | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 20 of 36 | ||||
| up" at the service boundaries to realize end-to-end protection. A | up" at the service boundaries to realize end-to-end protection. A | |||
| further advantage of this is that restoration is entirely contained | further advantage of this is that restoration is entirely contained | |||
| within the network where the failure occurs, thereby improving the | within the network where the failure occurs, thereby improving the | |||
| restoration latency. For instance, if there is a failure in the | restoration latency. For instance, if there is a failure in the | |||
| optical network, optical network protocols restore the segment | optical network, optical network protocols restore the segment | |||
| within. Under the second choice, restoration signaling is always | within. Under the second choice, restoration signaling is always | |||
| end-to-end between IP routers, essentially by-passing the optical | end-to-end between IP routers, essentially by-passing the optical | |||
| network. A result of this is that restoration latency could be | network. A result of this is that restoration latency could be | |||
| higher. In addition, restoration protocol in the IP layer must run | higher. In addition, restoration protocol in the IP layer must run | |||
| transparently over the optical network in the overlay mode. | transparently over the optical network in the overlay mode. | |||
| skipping to change at line 1087 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 4 ¶ | |||
| adequate granularity when establishing optical trails. For instance, | adequate granularity when establishing optical trails. For instance, | |||
| an OXC could have many ports, each of which may in turn terminate | an OXC could have many ports, each of which may in turn terminate | |||
| many optical channels, each of which contain many subchannels etc. | many optical channels, each of which contain many subchannels etc. | |||
| It is perhaps not reasonable to assume that every sub-channel or | It is perhaps not reasonable to assume that every sub-channel or | |||
| channel termination, or even OXC ports could be assigned a unique IP | channel termination, or even OXC ports could be assigned a unique IP | |||
| address. Also, the routing of an optical trail within the network | address. Also, the routing of an optical trail within the network | |||
| does not depend on the precise termination point information, but | does not depend on the precise termination point information, but | |||
| rather only on the terminating OXC. Thus, finer granularity | rather only on the terminating OXC. Thus, finer granularity | |||
| identification of termination points is of relevance only to the | identification of termination points is of relevance only to the | |||
| terminating OXC and not to intermediate OXCs (of course, resource | terminating OXC and not to intermediate OXCs (of course, resource | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 21 of 36 | ||||
| allocation at each intermediate point would depend on the | allocation at each intermediate point would depend on the | |||
| granularity of resources requested). This suggests an identification | granularity of resources requested). This suggests an identification | |||
| scheme whereby OXCs are identified by a unique IP address and a | scheme whereby OXCs are identified by a unique IP address and a | |||
| "selector" identifies further fine-grain information of relevance at | "selector" identifies further fine-grain information of relevance at | |||
| an OXC. This, of course, does not preclude the identification of | an OXC. This, of course, does not preclude the identification of | |||
| these termination points directly with IP addresses(with a null | these termination points directly with IP addresses(with a null | |||
| selector). The selector can be formatted to have adequate number of | selector). The selector can be formatted to have adequate number of | |||
| bits and a structure that expresses port, channel, sub-channel, etc, | bits and a structure that expresses port, channel, sub-channel, etc, | |||
| identification. | identification. | |||
| Within the optical network, the establishment of trail segments | Within the optical network, the establishment of trail segments | |||
| between adjacent OXCs require the identification of specific port, | between adjacent OXCs require the identification of specific port, | |||
| channel, sub-channel, etc. With an MPLS-based control plane, a label | channel, sub-channel, etc. With an MPLS-based control plane, a label | |||
| serves this function. The structure of the "optical label" must be | serves this function. The structure of the "optical label" must be | |||
| such that it can encode the required information [7]. | such that it can encode the required information [7]. | |||
| Another entity that must be identified is the SRLG [16]. An | Another entity that must be identified is the SRLG [15]. An | |||
| SRLG is an identifier assigned to a group of optical links that | SRLG is an identifier assigned to a group of optical links that | |||
| share a physical resource. For instance, all optical channels routed | share a physical resource. For instance, all optical channels routed | |||
| over the same fiber could belong to the same SRLG. Similarly, all | over the same fiber could belong to the same SRLG. Similarly, all | |||
| fibers routed over a conduit could belong to the same SRLG. The | fibers routed over a conduit could belong to the same SRLG. The | |||
| notable characteristic of SRLGs is that a given link could belong to | notable characteristic of SRLGs is that a given link could belong to | |||
| more than one SRLG, and two links belonging to a given SRLG may | more than one SRLG, and two links belonging to a given SRLG may | |||
| individually belong to two other SRLGs. This is illustrated in | individually belong to two other SRLGs. This is illustrated in | |||
| Figure 6. Here, the links 1,2,3 and 4 may belong to SRLG 1, links | Figure 6. Here, the links 1,2,3 and 4 may belong to SRLG 1, links | |||
| 1,2 and 3 could belong to SRLG 2 and link 4 could belong to SRLG 3. | 1,2 and 3 could belong to SRLG 2 and link 4 could belong to SRLG 3. | |||
| Similarly, links 5 and 6 could belong to SRLG 1, and links 7 and 8 | Similarly, links 5 and 6 could belong to SRLG 1, and links 7 and 8 | |||
| could belong to SRLG 4. (In this example, the same SRLG, i.e., 1, | could belong to SRLG 4. (In this example, the same SRLG, i.e., 1, | |||
| contains links from two different adjacencies). | contains links from two different adjacencies). | |||
| While the classification of physical resources into SRLGs is a | While the classification of physical resources into SRLGs is a | |||
| manual operation, the assignment of unique identifiers to these | manual operation, the assignment of unique identifiers to these | |||
| SRLGs within an optical network is essential to ensure correct | SRLGs within an optical network is essential to ensure correct | |||
| SRLG-disjoint path computation for protection. SRLGs could be | SRLG-disjoint path computation for protection. SRLGs could be | |||
| identified with a flat identifier (e.g., 32 bit integer). | identified with a flat identifier (e.g., 32 bit integer). | |||
| Finally, optical links between adjacent OXCs may be bundled for | Finally, optical links between adjacent OXCs may be bundled for | |||
| advertisementinto a link state protocol [16]. A bundled interface | advertisementinto a link state protocol [15]. A bundled interface | |||
| may be numbered or unnumbered. In either case, the component links | may be numbered or unnumbered. In either case, the component links | |||
| within the bundle must be identifiable. In concert with SRLG | within the bundle must be identifiable. In concert with SRLG | |||
| identification, this information is necessary for correct path | identification, this information is necessary for correct path | |||
| computation [16]. | computation [15]. | |||
| 8.2 Neighbor Discovery | 8.2 Neighbor Discovery | |||
| Routing within the optical network relies on knowledge of network | Routing within the optical network relies on knowledge of network | |||
| topology and resource availability. This information may be gathered | topology and resource availability. This information may be gathered | |||
| and used by a centralized system, or by a distributed link state | and used by a centralized system, or by a distributed link state | |||
| routing protocol. In either case, the first step towards network- | routing protocol. In either case, the first step towards network- | |||
| wide link state determination is the discovery of the status of | wide link state determination is the discovery of the status of | |||
| local links to all neighbors by each OXC. Specifically, each OXC | local links to all neighbors by each OXC. Specifically, each OXC | |||
| must determine the up/down status of each optical link, the | must determine the up/down status of each optical link, the | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 22 of 36 | ||||
| bandwidth and other parameters of the link, and the identity of the | bandwidth and other parameters of the link, and the identity of the | |||
| remote end of the link (e.g., remote port number). The last piece of | remote end of the link (e.g., remote port number). The last piece of | |||
| information is used to specify an appropriate label when signaling | information is used to specify an appropriate label when signaling | |||
| for lightpath provisioning. The determination of these parameters | for lightpath provisioning. The determination of these parameters | |||
| could be based on a combination of manual configuration and an | could be based on a combination of manual configuration and an | |||
| automated protocol running between adjacent OXCs. The | automated protocol running between adjacent OXCs. The | |||
| characteristics of such a protocol would depend on the type of OXCs | characteristics of such a protocol would depend on the type of OXCs | |||
| that are adjacent (e.g., transparent or opaque). Generically, the | that are adjacent (e.g., transparent or opaque). Generically, the | |||
| protocol may be refered to as the "Neighbor Discovery Protocol | protocol may be refered to as the "Neighbor Discovery Protocol | |||
| (NDP)" although other functions such as link management and fault | (NDP)" although other functions such as link management and fault | |||
| skipping to change at line 1192 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 4 ¶ | |||
| +------+-----+ +------+-----+ | +------+-----+ +------+-----+ | |||
| Figure 6: Mesh Optical Network with SRLGs | Figure 6: Mesh Optical Network with SRLGs | |||
| 8.3 Topology Discovery | 8.3 Topology Discovery | |||
| Topology discovery is the procedure by which the topology and | Topology discovery is the procedure by which the topology and | |||
| resource state of all the links in a sub-network are determined. | resource state of all the links in a sub-network are determined. | |||
| Topology discovery may be done using a link state routing protocol | Topology discovery may be done using a link state routing protocol | |||
| (e.g., OSPF, ISIS), or it can be through a management protocol (in | (e.g., OSPF, ISIS), or it can be through a management protocol (in | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 23 of 36 | ||||
| the case of centralized path computation). The focus in this | the case of centralized path computation). The focus in this | |||
| framework is on fully distributed route computation using an IP link | framework is on fully distributed route computation using an IP link | |||
| state protocol. | state protocol. | |||
| In general, most of the link state routing functionality is | In general, most of the link state routing functionality is | |||
| maintained when applied to optical networks. However, the | maintained when applied to optical networks. However, the | |||
| representation of optical links, as well as some link parameters, | representation of optical links, as well as some link parameters, | |||
| are changed in this setting. Specifically, | are changed in this setting. Specifically, | |||
| o The link state information may consist of link bundles [16]. | o The link state information may consist of link bundles [15]. | |||
| Each link bundle is represented as an abstract link in the network | Each link bundle is represented as an abstract link in the network | |||
| topology. Different bundling representations are possible. For | topology. Different bundling representations are possible. For | |||
| instance, the parameters of the abstract link may include the | instance, the parameters of the abstract link may include the | |||
| number, bandwidth and the type of optical links contained in the | number, bandwidth and the type of optical links contained in the | |||
| underlying link bundle [16]. Also, the SRLGs corresponding to each | underlying link bundle [15]. Also, the SRLGs corresponding to each | |||
| optical link in the bundle may be included as a parameter. | optical link in the bundle may be included as a parameter. | |||
| o The link state information should capture restoration-related | o The link state information should capture restoration-related | |||
| parameters for optical links. Specifically, with shared protection | parameters for optical links. Specifically, with shared protection | |||
| (Section 8.5), the link state updates must have information that | (Section 8.5), the link state updates must have information that | |||
| allows the computation of shared protection paths. | allows the computation of shared protection paths. | |||
| o A single routing adjacency could be maintained between neighbors | o A single routing adjacency could be maintained between neighbors | |||
| which may have multiple optical links (or even multiple link | which may have multiple optical links (or even multiple link | |||
| bundles) between them. This reduces the protocol messaging | bundles) between them. This reduces the protocol messaging | |||
| skipping to change at line 1246 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 4 ¶ | |||
| networks. There could be local and end-to-end mechanisms for | networks. There could be local and end-to-end mechanisms for | |||
| restoration of lightpaths within a sub-network. Local mechanisms are | restoration of lightpaths within a sub-network. Local mechanisms are | |||
| used to select an alternate link between two adjacent OXCs when a | used to select an alternate link between two adjacent OXCs when a | |||
| failure affects the primary link over which the (protected) | failure affects the primary link over which the (protected) | |||
| lightpath is being routed. Local restoration does not affect the | lightpath is being routed. Local restoration does not affect the | |||
| end-to-end route of the lightpath. When local restoration is not | end-to-end route of the lightpath. When local restoration is not | |||
| possible (e.g., no alternate link is available between the adjacent | possible (e.g., no alternate link is available between the adjacent | |||
| OXCs in question), end-to-end restoration may be performed. With | OXCs in question), end-to-end restoration may be performed. With | |||
| this, the affected lightpath may be rerouted over an alternate path | this, the affected lightpath may be rerouted over an alternate path | |||
| that completely avoids the OXCs or the link segment where the | that completely avoids the OXCs or the link segment where the | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 24 of 36 | ||||
| failure occurred. For end-to-end restoration, alternate paths are | failure occurred. For end-to-end restoration, alternate paths are | |||
| typically pre-computed. Such back-up paths may have to be physically | typically pre-computed. Such back-up paths may have to be physically | |||
| diverse from the corresponding primary paths. | diverse from the corresponding primary paths. | |||
| End-to-end restoration may be based on two types of protection | End-to-end restoration may be based on two types of protection | |||
| schemes; "1 + 1" protection or shared protection. Under 1 + 1 | schemes; "1 + 1" protection or shared protection. Under 1 + 1 | |||
| protection, a back-up path is established for the protected primary | protection, a back-up path is established for the protected primary | |||
| path along a physically diverse route. Both paths are active and the | path along a physically diverse route. Both paths are active and the | |||
| failure along the primary path results in an immediate switch-over | failure along the primary path results in an immediate switch-over | |||
| to the back-up path. Under shared protection, back-up paths | to the back-up path. Under shared protection, back-up paths | |||
| skipping to change at line 1270 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 26 ¶ | |||
| assumed that the same failure will not affect the other primary | assumed that the same failure will not affect the other primary | |||
| paths whose back-ups share resources. | paths whose back-ups share resources. | |||
| 8.5 Route Computation | 8.5 Route Computation | |||
| The computation of a primary route for a lightpath within an optical | The computation of a primary route for a lightpath within an optical | |||
| sub-network is essentially a constraint-based routing problem. The | sub-network is essentially a constraint-based routing problem. The | |||
| constraint is typically the bandwidth required for the lightpath, | constraint is typically the bandwidth required for the lightpath, | |||
| perhaps along with administrative and policy constraints. The | perhaps along with administrative and policy constraints. The | |||
| objective of path computation could be to minimize the total | objective of path computation could be to minimize the total | |||
| capacity required for routing lightpaths [17]. | capacity required for routing lightpaths [16]. | |||
| Route computation with constraints may be accomplished using a | Route computation with constraints may be accomplished using a | |||
| number of algorithms [18]. When 1+1 protection is used, a back-up | number of algorithms [17]. When 1+1 protection is used, a back-up | |||
| path that does not traverse on any link which is part of the same | path that does not traverse on any link which is part of the same | |||
| SRLG as links in the primary path must be computed. Thus, it is | SRLG as links in the primary path must be computed. Thus, it is | |||
| essential that the SRLGs in the primary path be known during | essential that the SRLGs in the primary path be known during | |||
| alternate path computation, along with the availability of | alternate path computation, along with the availability of | |||
| resources in links that belong to other SRLGs. This requirement has | resources in links that belong to other SRLGs. This requirement has | |||
| certain implications on optical link bundling. Specifically, a | certain implications on optical link bundling. Specifically, a | |||
| bundled LSA must include adequate information such that a remote OXC | bundled LSA must include adequate information such that a remote OXC | |||
| can determine the resource availability under each SRLG that the | can determine the resource availability under each SRLG that the | |||
| bundled link refers to, and the relationship between links | bundled link refers to, and the relationship between links | |||
| belonging to different SRLGs in the bundle. For example, | belonging to different SRLGs in the bundle. For example, | |||
| skipping to change at line 1298 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 5 ¶ | |||
| It is somewhat complex to encode the SRLG relationships in a link | It is somewhat complex to encode the SRLG relationships in a link | |||
| bundle LSA. This information, however, is naturally captured if the | bundle LSA. This information, however, is naturally captured if the | |||
| link bundle is encoded as a set of "link groups", each specifying | link bundle is encoded as a set of "link groups", each specifying | |||
| the links that belong to exactly the same set of SRLGs. Within the | the links that belong to exactly the same set of SRLGs. Within the | |||
| link group, it is possible to specify the number of links of a | link group, it is possible to specify the number of links of a | |||
| particular type, for example, OC-48. With reference to Figure 3, | particular type, for example, OC-48. With reference to Figure 3, | |||
| for example, a bundle LSA can be advertised for the entire set of | for example, a bundle LSA can be advertised for the entire set of | |||
| links between OXC1 and OXC2, with the following information: | links between OXC1 and OXC2, with the following information: | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 25 of 36 | ||||
| Link Group ID SRLGs Link Type Number Other Info | Link Group ID SRLGs Link Type Number Other Info | |||
| ------------- ----- --------- ------ ---------- | ------------- ----- --------- ------ ---------- | |||
| 1 1,2 OC-48 3 --- | 1 1,2 OC-48 3 --- | |||
| 2 1,3 OC-192 1 --- | 2 1,3 OC-192 1 --- | |||
| Assuming that the above information is available for each bundle at | Assuming that the above information is available for each bundle at | |||
| every node, there are several approaches possible for path | every node, there are several approaches possible for path | |||
| computation. For instance, | computation. For instance, | |||
| 1. The primary path can be computed first, and the (exclusive | 1. The primary path can be computed first, and the (exclusive | |||
| skipping to change at line 1333 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 39 ¶ | |||
| groups in a bundle) rather than specific link group level | groups in a bundle) rather than specific link group level | |||
| information. In this case, the primary path computation | information. In this case, the primary path computation | |||
| procedure would output a series of bundles the path traverses. | procedure would output a series of bundles the path traverses. | |||
| Each OXC in the path would have the freedom to choose the | Each OXC in the path would have the freedom to choose the | |||
| particular link group to route that segment of the primary | particular link group to route that segment of the primary | |||
| path. This procedure would increase the chances of successfully | path. This procedure would increase the chances of successfully | |||
| setting up the primary path when link state information is not | setting up the primary path when link state information is not | |||
| up to date everywhere. But the specific link group chosen, and | up to date everywhere. But the specific link group chosen, and | |||
| hence the SRLGs in the primary path, must be captured during | hence the SRLGs in the primary path, must be captured during | |||
| primary path set-up, for example, using the RSVP-TE Route | primary path set-up, for example, using the RSVP-TE Route | |||
| Record Object [19]. This SRLG information is then used for | Record Object [18]. This SRLG information is then used for | |||
| computing the back-up path. The back-up path may also be | computing the back-up path. The back-up path may also be | |||
| established specifying only which SRLGs to AVOID in a given | established specifying only which SRLGs to AVOID in a given | |||
| segment, rather than which link groups to use. This would | segment, rather than which link groups to use. This would | |||
| maximize the chances of establishing the back-up. | maximize the chances of establishing the back-up. | |||
| 2. The primary path and the back-up path are comptuted together in | 2. The primary path and the back-up path are comptuted together in | |||
| one step, for example, using Suurbaale's algorithm [20]. In this | one step, for example, using Suurbaale's algorithm [19]. In this | |||
| case, the paths must be computed using specific link group | case, the paths must be computed using specific link group | |||
| information. | information. | |||
| To summarize, it is essential to capture sufficient information in | To summarize, it is essential to capture sufficient information in | |||
| link bundle LSAs to accommodate different path computation | link bundle LSAs to accommodate different path computation | |||
| procedures and to maximize the chances of successful path | procedures and to maximize the chances of successful path | |||
| establishment. Depending on the path computation procedure used, | establishment. Depending on the path computation procedure used, | |||
| the type of support needed during path establishment (e.g., the | the type of support needed during path establishment (e.g., the | |||
| recording of link group or SRLG information during path | recording of link group or SRLG information during path | |||
| establishment) may differ. | establishment) may differ. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 26 of 36 | ||||
| When shared protection is used, the route computation algorithm must | When shared protection is used, the route computation algorithm must | |||
| take into account the possibility of sharing links among multiple | take into account the possibility of sharing links among multiple | |||
| back-up paths. Under shared protection, the back-up paths | back-up paths. Under shared protection, the back-up paths | |||
| corresponding to SRLG-disjoint primary paths can be assigned the | corresponding to SRLG-disjoint primary paths can be assigned the | |||
| same links. The assumption here is that since the primary paths | same links. The assumption here is that since the primary paths | |||
| are not routed over links that have the same SRLG, a given failure | are not routed over links that have the same SRLG, a given failure | |||
| will affect only one of them. Furthermore, it is assumed that | will affect only one of them. Furthermore, it is assumed that | |||
| multiple failure events affecting links belonging to more than one | multiple failure events affecting links belonging to more than one | |||
| SRLG will not occur concurrently. Unlike the case of 1+1 | SRLG will not occur concurrently. Unlike the case of 1+1 | |||
| protection, the back-up paths are not established apriori. Rather, a | protection, the back-up paths are not established apriori. Rather, a | |||
| skipping to change at line 1374 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 26 ¶ | |||
| corresponding to the affected primary path. | corresponding to the affected primary path. | |||
| The distributed implementation of route computation for shared back- | The distributed implementation of route computation for shared back- | |||
| up paths require knowledge about the routing of all primary and | up paths require knowledge about the routing of all primary and | |||
| back-up paths at every node. This raises scalability concerns. For | back-up paths at every node. This raises scalability concerns. For | |||
| this reason, it may be practical to consider the centralization of | this reason, it may be practical to consider the centralization of | |||
| the route computation algorithm in a route server that has complete | the route computation algorithm in a route server that has complete | |||
| knowledge of the link state and path routes. Heuristics for fully | knowledge of the link state and path routes. Heuristics for fully | |||
| distributed route computation without complete knowledge of path | distributed route computation without complete knowledge of path | |||
| routes are to be determined. Path computation for restoration is | routes are to be determined. Path computation for restoration is | |||
| further described in [17, 21]. | further described in [16, 20]. | |||
| 8.6 Signaling Issues | 8.6 Signaling Issues | |||
| Signaling within an optical sub-network for lightpath provisioning | Signaling within an optical sub-network for lightpath provisioning | |||
| is a relatively simple operation. After a route is determined for a | is a relatively simple operation. After a route is determined for a | |||
| lightpath, each OXC in the path must establish appropriate cross- | lightpath, each OXC in the path must establish appropriate cross- | |||
| connects in a coordinated fashion. This coordination is akin to | connects in a coordinated fashion. This coordination is akin to | |||
| selecting incoming and outgoing labels in a label-switched | selecting incoming and outgoing labels in a label-switched | |||
| environment. Thus, protocols like RSVP-TE [14] and CR-LDP [13] can | environment. Thus, protocols like RSVP-TE [14] and CR-LDP [13] can | |||
| be used for this. A few new concerns, however, must be addressed. | be used for this. A few new concerns, however, must be addressed. | |||
| skipping to change at line 1404 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶ | |||
| select output port i which is connected to input port j of the | select output port i which is connected to input port j of the | |||
| "next" OXC B. Concurrently, OXC B may select output port j for | "next" OXC B. Concurrently, OXC B may select output port j for | |||
| setting up a different optical path, where the "next" OXC is A. This | setting up a different optical path, where the "next" OXC is A. This | |||
| results in a "collision". Similarly, when WDM functionality is built | results in a "collision". Similarly, when WDM functionality is built | |||
| into OXCs, a collision occurs when adjacent OXCs choose directly | into OXCs, a collision occurs when adjacent OXCs choose directly | |||
| connected output ports and the same wavelength for two different | connected output ports and the same wavelength for two different | |||
| optical paths. There are two ways to deal with such collisions. | optical paths. There are two ways to deal with such collisions. | |||
| First, collisions may be detected and the involved paths may be torn | First, collisions may be detected and the involved paths may be torn | |||
| down and re-established. Or, collisions may be avoided altogether. | down and re-established. Or, collisions may be avoided altogether. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 27 of 36 | ||||
| 8.6.2 Failure Recovery | 8.6.2 Failure Recovery | |||
| The impact of transient partial failures must be minimized in an | The impact of transient partial failures must be minimized in an | |||
| optical network. Specifically, optical paths that are not directly | optical network. Specifically, optical paths that are not directly | |||
| affected by a failure must not be torn down due to the failure. For | affected by a failure must not be torn down due to the failure. For | |||
| example, the control processor in an OXC may fail, affecting | example, the control processor in an OXC may fail, affecting | |||
| signaling and other internodal control communication. Similarly, | signaling and other internodal control communication. Similarly, | |||
| the control channel between OXCs may be affected temporarily by a | the control channel between OXCs may be affected temporarily by a | |||
| failure. These failure may not affect already established optical | failure. These failure may not affect already established optical | |||
| paths passing through the OXC fabric. The detection of such failures | paths passing through the OXC fabric. The detection of such failures | |||
| skipping to change at line 1458 ¶ | skipping to change at page 30, line 4 ¶ | |||
| point of failure, and activation of the back-up path. The signaling | point of failure, and activation of the back-up path. The signaling | |||
| for these two phases must be very fast in order to realize response | for these two phases must be very fast in order to realize response | |||
| times in the order of tens of milliseconds. When optical links are | times in the order of tens of milliseconds. When optical links are | |||
| SONET-based, in-band signals may be used, resulting in quick | SONET-based, in-band signals may be used, resulting in quick | |||
| response. With out-of-band control, it is necessary to consider | response. With out-of-band control, it is necessary to consider | |||
| fast signaling over the control channel using very short IP packets | fast signaling over the control channel using very short IP packets | |||
| and prioritized processing. While it is possible to use RSVP or CR- | and prioritized processing. While it is possible to use RSVP or CR- | |||
| LDP for activating protection paths, these protocols do not provide | LDP for activating protection paths, these protocols do not provide | |||
| any means to give priority to restoration signaling as opposed to | any means to give priority to restoration signaling as opposed to | |||
| signaling for provisioning. For instance, it is possible for a | signaling for provisioning. For instance, it is possible for a | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 28 of 36 | ||||
| restoration-related RSVP message to be queued behind a number of | restoration-related RSVP message to be queued behind a number of | |||
| provisioning messages thereby delaying restoration. It is therefore | provisioning messages thereby delaying restoration. It is therefore | |||
| necessary to develop a definition of QoS for restoration signaling | necessary to develop a definition of QoS for restoration signaling | |||
| and incorporate mechanisms in existing signaling protocols to | and incorporate mechanisms in existing signaling protocols to | |||
| achieve this. Or, a new signaling protocol may be developed | achieve this. Or, a new signaling protocol may be developed | |||
| exclusively for activating protection paths during restoration. | exclusively for activating protection paths during restoration. | |||
| 8.7 Optical Internetworking | 8.7 Optical Internetworking | |||
| Ideally, a set of interconnected optical sub-networks must be | Ideally, a set of interconnected optical sub-networks must be | |||
| skipping to change at line 1512 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 4 ¶ | |||
| and across sub-networks. | and across sub-networks. | |||
| 8.7.2 Addressing and Routing Model | 8.7.2 Addressing and Routing Model | |||
| The addressing mechanisms described in Section 8.1 can be used to | The addressing mechanisms described in Section 8.1 can be used to | |||
| identify OXCs, ports, channels and sub-channels in each sub-network. | identify OXCs, ports, channels and sub-channels in each sub-network. | |||
| It is essential that the OXC IP addresses are unique network-wide. | It is essential that the OXC IP addresses are unique network-wide. | |||
| Provisioning an end-to-end lightpath across multiple sub-networks | Provisioning an end-to-end lightpath across multiple sub-networks | |||
| involves the establishment of path segments in each sub-network | involves the establishment of path segments in each sub-network | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 29 of 36 | ||||
| sequentially. Thus, a path segment is established from the source | sequentially. Thus, a path segment is established from the source | |||
| OXC to a border OXC in the source sub-network. From this border OXC, | OXC to a border OXC in the source sub-network. From this border OXC, | |||
| signaling across NNI is used to establish a path segment to a border | signaling across NNI is used to establish a path segment to a border | |||
| OXC in the next sub-network. Provisioning then continues in the next | OXC in the next sub-network. Provisioning then continues in the next | |||
| sub-network and so on until the destination OXC is reached. | sub-network and so on until the destination OXC is reached. | |||
| A version of BGP may be used to determine the routes to destinations | A version of BGP may be used to determine the routes to destinations | |||
| across sub-networks. Using exterior BGP, adjacent border OXCs in | across sub-networks. Using exterior BGP, adjacent border OXCs in | |||
| different sub-networks can exchange reachability of OXCs and other | different sub-networks can exchange reachability of OXCs and other | |||
| external IP endpoints (border routers). Using interior BGP, the same | external IP endpoints (border routers). Using interior BGP, the same | |||
| skipping to change at line 1567 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 4 ¶ | |||
| decisions. This would be somewhat akin to using VPI (e.g., | decisions. This would be somewhat akin to using VPI (e.g., | |||
| wavelength) and VCI (e.g., TDM sub-channel) in ATM networks. More | wavelength) and VCI (e.g., TDM sub-channel) in ATM networks. More | |||
| generally, this will be akin to label stacking and to LSP nesting | generally, this will be akin to label stacking and to LSP nesting | |||
| within the context of Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching [1]. GMPLS | within the context of Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching [1]. GMPLS | |||
| signaling [7] supports this type of multiplexing. | signaling [7] supports this type of multiplexing. | |||
| 9.2 Wavelength Conversion | 9.2 Wavelength Conversion | |||
| Some form of wavelength conversion may exist at some switching | Some form of wavelength conversion may exist at some switching | |||
| elements. This however may not be case in some pure optical | elements. This however may not be case in some pure optical | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 30 of 36 | ||||
| switching elements. A switching element is essentially anything | switching elements. A switching element is essentially anything | |||
| more sophisticated than a simple repeater, that is capable of | more sophisticated than a simple repeater, that is capable of | |||
| switching and converting a wavelength Lambda(k) from an input port | switching and converting a wavelength Lambda(k) from an input port | |||
| to a wavelength Lambda(l) on an output port. In this display, it | to a wavelength Lambda(l) on an output port. In this display, it | |||
| is not necessarily the case that Lambda(k) = Lambda(l), nor is it | is not necessarily the case that Lambda(k) = Lambda(l), nor is it | |||
| necessarily the case that the data carried on Lambda(k) is switched | necessarily the case that the data carried on Lambda(k) is switched | |||
| through the device without being examined or modified. | through the device without being examined or modified. | |||
| It is not necessary to have a wavelength converter at every | It is not necessary to have a wavelength converter at every | |||
| switching element. A number of studies have attempted to address | switching element. A number of studies have attempted to address | |||
| skipping to change at line 1623 ¶ | skipping to change at page 33, line 5 ¶ | |||
| core networks has not been widely adopted by carriers and ISPs for a | core networks has not been widely adopted by carriers and ISPs for a | |||
| number of reasons: possible CPU overhead in core network elements, | number of reasons: possible CPU overhead in core network elements, | |||
| complexity of proposed solutions, stability concerns, and lack of | complexity of proposed solutions, stability concerns, and lack of | |||
| true economic drivers for this type of service. This draft assumes | true economic drivers for this type of service. This draft assumes | |||
| that this paradigm will not change and that highly dynamic, data- | that this paradigm will not change and that highly dynamic, data- | |||
| driven shortcut lightpath setups are for future investigation. | driven shortcut lightpath setups are for future investigation. | |||
| Instead, the optical channel trails and lightpaths that are expected | Instead, the optical channel trails and lightpaths that are expected | |||
| to be widely used at the initial phases in the evolution of IP over | to be widely used at the initial phases in the evolution of IP over | |||
| optical networks will include the following: | optical networks will include the following: | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 31 of 36 | ||||
| o Dynamic connections for control plane traffic and default path | o Dynamic connections for control plane traffic and default path | |||
| routed data traffic, | routed data traffic, | |||
| o Establishment and re-arrangement of arbitrary virtual topologies | o Establishment and re-arrangement of arbitrary virtual topologies | |||
| over rings and other physical layer topologies. | over rings and other physical layer topologies. | |||
| o Use of stable traffic engineering control systems to engineer | o Use of stable traffic engineering control systems to engineer | |||
| lightpath connections to enhance network performance, either for | lightpath connections to enhance network performance, either for | |||
| explicit demand based QoS reasons or for load balancing). | explicit demand based QoS reasons or for load balancing). | |||
| skipping to change at line 1674 ¶ | skipping to change at page 34, line 4 ¶ | |||
| Another provisioning model is to have a centralized server which has | Another provisioning model is to have a centralized server which has | |||
| complete knowledge of the physical topology, the available | complete knowledge of the physical topology, the available | |||
| wavelengths, and where applicable, relevant time domain information. | wavelengths, and where applicable, relevant time domain information. | |||
| A corresponding client will reside on each network element that can | A corresponding client will reside on each network element that can | |||
| source or sink a lightpath. The source client would query the | source or sink a lightpath. The source client would query the | |||
| server in order to set up a lightpath from the source to the | server in order to set up a lightpath from the source to the | |||
| destination. The server would then check to see if such a lightpath | destination. The server would then check to see if such a lightpath | |||
| can be established based on prevailing conditions. Furthermore, | can be established based on prevailing conditions. Furthermore, | |||
| depending on the specifics of the model, the server may either setup | depending on the specifics of the model, the server may either setup | |||
| the lightpath on behalf of the client or provide the necessary | the lightpath on behalf of the client or provide the necessary | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 32 of 36 | ||||
| information to the client or to some other entity to allow the | information to the client or to some other entity to allow the | |||
| lightpath to be instantiated. | lightpath to be instantiated. | |||
| Centralization aids in implementing complex capacity optimization | Centralization aids in implementing complex capacity optimization | |||
| schemes, and may be the near-term provisioning solution in optical | schemes, and may be the near-term provisioning solution in optical | |||
| networks with interconnected multi-vendor optical sub-networks. In | networks with interconnected multi-vendor optical sub-networks. In | |||
| the long term, however, the distributed solution with centralization | the long term, however, the distributed solution with centralization | |||
| of some control procedures (e.g., traffic engineering) is likely to | of some control procedures (e.g., traffic engineering) is likely to | |||
| be the approach followed. | be the approach followed. | |||
| skipping to change at line 1727 ¶ | skipping to change at page 35, line 5 ¶ | |||
| optical boundary would become more sophisticated, but the basic | optical boundary would become more sophisticated, but the basic | |||
| structure of signaling would remain. This would allow incremental | structure of signaling would remain. This would allow incremental | |||
| developments as the interconnection model becomes more | developments as the interconnection model becomes more | |||
| sophisticated, rather than complete re-development of signaling | sophisticated, rather than complete re-development of signaling | |||
| capabilities. | capabilities. | |||
| 11. Security Considerations | 11. Security Considerations | |||
| TBD. | TBD. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 33 of 36 | ||||
| 12. Summary and Conclusions | 12. Summary and Conclusions | |||
| The objective of this draft was to define a framework for IP over | The objective of this draft was to define a framework for IP over | |||
| optical networks, considering the service models, routing and | optical networks, considering the service models, routing and | |||
| signaling issues. There are a diversity of choices, as described | signaling issues. There are a diversity of choices, as described | |||
| in this draft, for IP-optical interconnection, service models | in this draft, for IP-optical interconnection, service models | |||
| and protocol mechanisms. The approach advocated in this draft | and protocol mechanisms. The approach advocated in this draft | |||
| was to allow different service models and proprietary enhancements | was to allow different service models and proprietary enhancements | |||
| in optical networks, and define complementary signaling and | in optical networks, and define complementary signaling and | |||
| routing mechanisms that would support these. An evolution scenario, | routing mechanisms that would support these. An evolution scenario, | |||
| skipping to change at line 1756 ¶ | skipping to change at page 35, line 33 ¶ | |||
| 1. D. Awduche, Y. Rekhter, J. Drake, R. Coltun, "Multi-Protocol | 1. D. Awduche, Y. Rekhter, J. Drake, R. Coltun, "Multi-Protocol | |||
| Lambda Switching: Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control | Lambda Switching: Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control | |||
| With Optical Crossconnects," draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical- | With Optical Crossconnects," draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical- | |||
| 02.txt, Work in Progress, July, 2000. | 02.txt, Work in Progress, July, 2000. | |||
| 2. K. Arvind, et. al, "Optical Domain Services Interconnect (ODSI) | 2. K. Arvind, et. al, "Optical Domain Services Interconnect (ODSI) | |||
| Signaling Control Specification, Version 1.4.5" www.odsi- | Signaling Control Specification, Version 1.4.5" www.odsi- | |||
| coalition.com, March, 2000. | coalition.com, March, 2000. | |||
| 3. D. Pendarakis, B. Rajagopalan and D. Saha, "Routing Information | 3. D. Pendarakis, B. Rajagopalan and D. Saha, "Routing Information | |||
| Exchange in Optical Networks," draft-prs-optical-routing-01.ps, | Exchange in Optical Networks," draft-prs-optical-routing-02.ps, | |||
| Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | Internet Draft, Work in Progress, March, 2001. | |||
| 4. J. P. Lang, et. al., "Link Management Protocol," draft-ietf-mpls- | 4. J. P. Lang, et. al., "Link Management Protocol," draft-ietf-mpls- | |||
| lmp-01.txt, Internet Draft, Work in progress, November, 2000. | lmp-02.txt, Internet Draft, Work in progress, March, 2001. | |||
| 5. K. Kompella et al, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized | 5. K. Kompella et al, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized | |||
| MPLS," draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt, Work in | MPLS," draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt, Work in | |||
| Progress, November, 2000. | Progress, November, 2000. | |||
| 6. K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE," draft- | 6. K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE," draft- | |||
| ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-01.txt, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-01.txt, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | |||
| 7. P. Ashwood-Smith et. al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional | 7. P. Ashwood-Smith et. al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional | |||
| Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-00.txt, | Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-02.txt, | |||
| Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | Internet Draft, Work in Progress, March, 2001. | |||
| 8. O. Abul-Magd, et. al., "Signaling Requirements at the Optical | 8. O. Abul-Magd, et. al., "Signaling Requirements at the Optical | |||
| UNI," draft-bala-mpls-optical-uni-signaling-01.txt, Internet | UNI," draft-bala-mpls-optical-uni-signaling-01.txt, Internet | |||
| Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | |||
| 9. Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP4)",RFC | 9. Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP4)",RFC | |||
| 1771, March, 1995. | 1771, March, 1995. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 34 of 36 | ||||
| 10. E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March, | 10. E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March, | |||
| 1999. | 1999. | |||
| 11. E. Gray, et. al., "RSVP Extensions in Support of OIF Optical | 11. E. Gray, et. al., "RSVP Extensions in Support of OIF Optical | |||
| UNI Signaling," draft-gray-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext-00.txt, Internet | UNI Signaling," draft-gray-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext-00.txt, Internet | |||
| Draft, Work in Progress, October, 2000. | Draft, Work in Progress, October, 2000. | |||
| 12. O. Abul-Magd, et. al., "LDP Extensions for Optical UNI | 12. O. Abul-Magd, et. al., "LDP Extensions for Optical UNI | |||
| Signaling," draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-00.txt, Internet | Signaling," draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-optical-uni-00.txt, Internet | |||
| Draft, Work in Progress, October, 2000. | Draft, Work in Progress, October, 2000. | |||
| 13. P. Ashwood-Smith, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP Signaling | 13. P. Ashwood-Smith, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP Signaling | |||
| Functional Description," draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp- | Functional Description," draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp- | |||
| 00.txt, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | 00.txt, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | |||
| 14. P. Ashwood-Smith, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP-TE | 14. P. Ashwood-Smith, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP-TE | |||
| Signaling Functional Description," draft-ietf-mpls-generalized- | Signaling Functional Description," draft-ietf-mpls-generalized- | |||
| rsvp-te-00.txt, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | rsvp-te-00.txt, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, 2000. | |||
| 15. B. Mack-Crane, et. al., "Enhancements to GMPLS Signaling for | 15. B. Rajagopalan and D. Saha, "Link Bundling in Optical | |||
| Optical Technologies," draft-mack-crane-gmpls-signaling- | ||||
| enchancements-00.txt, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, November, | ||||
| 2000. | ||||
| 16. B. Rajagopalan and D. Saha, "Link Bundling in Optical | ||||
| Networks," draft-rs-optical-bundling-01.txt, Internet Draft, Work | Networks," draft-rs-optical-bundling-01.txt, Internet Draft, Work | |||
| in Progress, October, 2000. | in Progress, October, 2000. | |||
| 17. B. Doshi, S. Dravida, P. Harshavardhana, et. al, "Optical | 16. B. Doshi, S. Dravida, P. Harshavardhana, et. al, "Optical | |||
| Network Design and Restoration," Bell Labs Technical Journal, | Network Design and Restoration," Bell Labs Technical Journal, | |||
| Jan-March, 1999. | Jan-March, 1999. | |||
| 18. E. Crawley, R. Nair, B. Rajagopalan and H. Sandick, "A | 17. E. Crawley, R. Nair, B. Rajagopalan and H. Sandick, "A | |||
| Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet," RFC 2386, | Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet," RFC 2386, | |||
| August, 1998. | August, 1998. | |||
| 19. D. Awduche, L. Berger, Der-Hwa Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow, V. | 18. D. Awduche, L. Berger, Der-Hwa Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow, V. | |||
| Srinivasan, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,"draft- | Srinivasan, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,"draft- | |||
| ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-07.txt, Internet Draft, Work in | ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt, Internet Draft, Work in | |||
| progress, October, 2000. | progress, March, 2001. | |||
| 20. J. Suurballe, "Disjoint Paths in a Network," Networks, vol. 4, | 19. J. Suurballe, "Disjoint Paths in a Network," Networks, vol. 4, | |||
| 1974. | 1974. | |||
| 21. S. Ramamurthy, Z. Bogdanowicz, S. Samieian, et al., "Capacity | 20. S. Ramamurthy, Z. Bogdanowicz, S. Samieian, et al., "Capacity | |||
| Performance of Dynamic Provisioning in Optical Networks", to | Performance of Dynamic Provisioning in Optical Networks", to | |||
| appear in J. of Lightwave Technology. | appear in J. of Lightwave Technology. | |||
| 14. Acknowledgments | 14. Acknowledgments | |||
| We would like to thank Zouheir Mansourati and Ian Duncan of Nortel | We would like to thank Zouheir Mansourati and Ian Duncan of Nortel | |||
| Networks for their comments on this draft. | Networks for their comments on this draft. | |||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 35 of 36 | ||||
| 15. Author's Addresses | 15. Author's Addresses | |||
| Bala Rajagopalan James V. Luciani | Bala Rajagopalan James V. Luciani | |||
| Debanjan Saha TollBridge Technologies | Debanjan Saha TollBridge Technologies | |||
| Tellium, Inc. P,O. Box 1010 | Tellium, Inc. P,O. Box 1010 | |||
| 2 Crescent Place Concord, MA 01742 | 2 Crescent Place Concord, MA 01742 | |||
| P.O. Box 901 Email: james_luciani@mindspring.com | P.O. Box 901 Email: james_luciani@mindspring.com | |||
| Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 | Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 | |||
| Email: {braja, dsaha}@tellium.com | Email: {braja, dsaha}@tellium.com | |||
| Daniel O. Awduche Brad Cain, Bilel Jamoussi | Daniel O. Awduche Brad Cain, Bilel Jamoussi | |||
| UUNET (MCI Worldcom) Nortel Networks | UUNET (MCI Worldcom) Nortel Networks | |||
| Loudoun County Parkway 600 Tech Park | Loudoun County Parkway 600 Tech Park | |||
| Ashburn, VA 20247 Billerica, MA 01821 | Ashburn, VA 20247 Billerica, MA 01821 | |||
| Phone: 703-886-5277 Phone: 978-288-4734 | Phone: 703-886-5277 Phone: 978-288-4734 | |||
| Email: awduche@uu.net Email: bcain@nortelnetworks.com | Email: awduche@uu.net Email: bcain@nortelnetworks.com | |||
| jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com | jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com | |||
| ******** This draft expires on May, 24, 2001 *********** | ||||
| Expires on 5/24/01 Page 36 of 36 | ||||
| End of changes. 68 change blocks. | ||||
| 134 lines changed or deleted | 137 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||