idnits 2.17.1
draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-04.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The abstract seems to contain references ([ITU.G694.1]), which it
shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
documents in question.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (June 30, 2017) is 2489 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'RFC4902' is mentioned on line 84, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'ITU.G959.1' is mentioned on line 178, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'G.694.1' is mentioned on line 187, but not defined
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk' is defined on
line 453, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G698.2' is defined on line 464, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G709' is defined on line 470, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G872' is defined on line 475, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G874.1' is defined on line 480, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4054' is defined on line 486, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 508, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3410' is defined on line 512, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 518, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-03
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk (ref.
'I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk')
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G694.1'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G698.2'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G709'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G872'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G874.1'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4054
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629
(Obsoleted by RFC 7749)
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 14 warnings (==), 7 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Internet Engineering Task Force D. Hiremagalur, Ed.
3 Internet-Draft G. Grammel, Ed.
4 Intended status: Standards Track Juniper
5 Expires: January 1, 2018 G. Galimberti, Ed.
6 Cisco
7 R. Kunze
8 Deutsche Telekom
9 D. Beller
10 Nokia
11 June 30, 2017
13 Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense
14 Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage
15 the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application
16 draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-04
18 Abstract
20 This memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for managing Optical
21 parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)
22 systems in accordance with the Interface Application Identifier
23 approach defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1] and its
24 extensions.
26 Copyright Notice
28 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
29 document authors. All rights reserved.
31 Status of This Memo
33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
46 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2018.
48 Copyright Notice
50 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
51 document authors. All rights reserved.
53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
56 publication of this document. Please review these documents
57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
61 described in the Simplified BSD License.
63 Table of Contents
65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
66 2. DWDM line system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
67 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
68 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
69 5. General Parameters - OCh_General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
70 6. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier . . . . . . 6
71 7. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
72 8. OCh_Rs - receive parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
73 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
74 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
75 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
76 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
77 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
78 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
81 1. Introduction
83 This extension addresses the use cases described by "draft-ietf-
84 ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-00". LMP [RFC4902] provides link property
85 correlation capabilities that can be used between a transceiver
86 device and an Optical Line System (OLS) device. Link property
87 correlation is a procedure by which, intrinsic parameters and
88 capabilities are exchanged between two ends of a link. Link property
89 correlation as defined in RFC3591 allows either end of the link to
90 supervise the received signal and operate within a commonly
91 understood parameter window. Here the term 'link' refers in
92 particular to the attachment link between OXC and OLS (see Figure 1).
93 The relevant interface parameters are in line with "draft-galikunze-
94 ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-mib-01" and "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang-00".
96 2. DWDM line system
98 Figure 1 shows a set of reference points (Rs and Ss), for a single-
99 channel connection between transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx)
100 devices. Here the DWDM network elements in between those devices
101 include an Optical Multiplexer (OM) and an Optical Demultiplexer
102 (OD). In addition it may include one or more Optical Amplifiers (OA)
103 and one or more Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers (OADM).
105 +-------------------------------------------------+
106 Ss | DWDM Network Elements | Rs
107 +--+ | | | \ / | | | +--+
108 Tx L1--|->| \ +------+ +------+ / |--|-->Rx L1
109 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
110 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+
111 Tx L2--|->| OM |-->|------|->|ROADM |--|------|->| OD |--|-->Rx L2
112 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+
113 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
114 Tx L3--|->| / | DWDM | | ^ | DWDM | \ |--|-->Rx L3
115 +---+ | | / | Link +----|--|----+ Link | \ | | +--+
116 +-----------+ | | +----------+
117 +--+ +--+
118 | |
119 Rs v | Ss
120 +-----+ +-----+
121 |RxLx | |TxLx |
122 +-----+ +-----+
124 Ss = Sender reference point at the DWDM network element
125 tributary output
126 Rs = Receiver reference point at the DWDM network element
127 tributary input
128 Lx = Lambda x
129 OM = Optical Mux
130 OD = Optical Demux
131 ROADM = Reconfigurable Optical Add Drop Mux
133 from Fig. 5.1/G.698.2
135 Figure 1: Linear Single Channel approach
137 Figure 2 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] )
139 +------+ Ss +------+ +------+ Rs +------+
140 | | ----- | | | | ----- | |
141 | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
142 | | ----- | | | | ----- | |
143 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
144 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
145 | | | | | |
146 | +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ |
147 | |
148 +----------------------LMP-----------------------+
150 OXC : is an entity that contains transponders
151 OLS : generic optical system, it can be -
152 Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add
153 Drop Mux, Amplifier etc.
154 OLS to OLS : represents the Optical Multiplex section
155
156 Rs/Ss : reference points in between the OXC and the OLS
158 Figure 2: Extended LMP Model
160 3. Use Cases
162 The use cases are described in draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk
164 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol
166 This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow a set of
167 characteristic parameters, to be exchanged between a router or
168 optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached.
169 In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects
170 to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and
171 [RFC6205]. The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different
172 Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and
173 status of their peer. These messages and their usage are defined in
174 subsequent sections of this document.
176 The following new messages are defined for the WDM extension for
177 ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]/ITU-T G.698.1 [ITU.G698.1]/
178 ITU-T G.959.1 [ITU.G959.1]
179 - OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA)
180 - OCh_ApplicationIdentier (sub-object Type = TBA)
181 - OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA)
182 - OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA)
184 5. General Parameters - OCh_General
186 These are a set of general parameters as described in [G698.2] and
187 [G.694.1]. Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-
188 mib-01" and "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang-00" for more details
189 about these parameters and the [RFC6205] for the wavelength
190 definition.
192 The general parameters are
193 1. Central Frequency - (Tera Hz) 4 bytes (see RFC6205 sec.3.2)
194 2. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
195 3. Single-channel Application Identifier in use
196 4. Application Identifier Type in use
197 5. Application Identifier in use
199 Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
200 TBA) is as follows:
202 0 1 2 3
203 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
205 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
207 | Central Frequency |
208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
209 | Number of Application | |
210 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
212 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
213 | Application | in use | |
214 | Identifier | | |
215 | Number in use | | |
216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
217 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
219 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
221 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
223 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
225 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
227 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
229 0 1 2 3
230 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
231 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
232 | Single-channel Application Code |
233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
234 | Single-channel Application Code |
235 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
236 | Single-channel Application Code |
237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
239 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
241 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
242 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
243 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
244 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
245 vendor whose implementation generated the Application
246 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
247 unspecified.
249 0 1 2 3
250 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
251 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
252 | OUI |
253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
254 | OUI cont. | Vendor value |
255 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
256 | Vendor Value |
257 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
259 Figure 3: OCh_General
261 6. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
263 This message is to exchange the application identifiers supported as
264 described in [G698.2]. There can be more than one Application
265 Identifier supported by the transmitter/receiver in the OXC. The
266 number of application identifiers supported is exchanged in the
267 "OCh_General" message. (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] and G.874.1
268 )
269 The parameters are
270 1. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
272 2. Single-channel application identifier Number
273 uniquely identifiers this entry - 8 bits
275 3. Application Indentifier Type (A.I.) (STANDARD/PROPRIETARY)
277 4. Single-channel application identifier -- 96 bits
278 (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1]
280 - this parameter can have
281 multiple instances as the transceiver can support multiple
282 application identifiers.
284 Figure 4: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
285 TBA) is as follows:
287 0 1 2 3
288 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
289 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
290 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
291 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
292 | Number of Application | |
293 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
294 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
295 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
296 | Application | | |
297 | Identifier | | |
298 | Number | | |
299 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
300 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
301 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
302 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
303 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
304 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
305 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
306 // .... //
307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
308 | Single-channel| | A.I. length |
309 | Application | A.I. Type | |
310 | Identifier | | |
311 | Number | | |
312 | | | |
313 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
314 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
315 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
316 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
317 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
318 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
321 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
323 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
324 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
326 0 1 2 3
327 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
328 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
329 | Single-channel Application Code |
330 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
331 | Single-channel Application Code |
332 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
333 | Single-channel Application Code |
334 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
336 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
338 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
339 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
340 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
341 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
342 vendor whose implementation generated the Application
343 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
344 unspecified.
346 0 1 2 3
347 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
349 | OUI |
350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
351 | OUI cont. | Vendor value |
352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
353 | Vendor Value |
354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
356 Figure 4: OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
358 7. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters
360 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Source(Ss reference points).
361 Please refer to "draft-galikunze-ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-mib-01" for more
362 details about these parameters.
364 1. Output power
366 Figure 5: The format of the OCh sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
367 is as follows:
369 0 1 2 3
370 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
371 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
372 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
373 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
374 | Output Power |
375 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
377 Figure 5: OCh_Ss transmit parameters
379 8. OCh_Rs - receive parameters
381 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Sink (Rs reference points).
383 1. Current Input Power - (0.1dbm) 4bytes
385 Figure 6: The format of the OCh receive sub-object (Type = TBA,
386 Length = TBA) is as follows:
388 The format of the OCh receive/OLS Sink sub-object (Type = TBA,
389 Length = TBA) is as follows:
391 0 1 2 3
392 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
394 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
396 | Current Input Power |
397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
399 Figure 6: OCh_Rs receive parameters
401 9. Security Considerations
403 LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204]. This
404 document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing
405 LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209]. This
406 document does not introduce new security considerations.
408 10. IANA Considerations
410 LMP defines the following name spaces and
411 the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:
413 - LMP Message Type
414 - LMP Object Class
415 - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
416 - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
417 This memo introduces the following new assignments:
419 LMP Sub-Object Class names:
421 under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in )
422 - OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA)
423 - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier (sub-object Type = TBA)
424 - OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA)
425 - OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA)
427 11. Contributors
429 Arnold Mattheus
430 Deutsche Telekom
431 Darmstadt
432 Germany
433 email a.mattheus@telekom.de
435 John E. Drake
436 Juniper
437 1194 N Mathilda Avenue
438 HW-US,Pennsylvania
439 USA
440 jdrake@juniper.net
442 Zafar Ali
443 Cisco
444 3000 Innovation Drive
445 KANATA
446 ONTARIO K2K 3E8
447 zali@cisco.com
449 12. References
451 12.1. Normative References
453 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk]
454 Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., and G. Galimberti, "A
455 framework for Management and Control of DWDM optical
456 interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-
457 fwk-03 (work in progress), October 2016.
459 [ITU.G694.1]
460 International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
461 for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
462 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.
464 [ITU.G698.2]
465 International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
466 multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
467 applications with single channel optical interfaces",
468 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.
470 [ITU.G709]
471 International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
472 Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
473 G.709, February 2012.
475 [ITU.G872]
476 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
477 optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
478 October 2012.
480 [ITU.G874.1]
481 International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
482 network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
483 model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
484 G.874.1, October 2012.
486 [RFC4054] Strand, J., Ed. and A. Chiu, Ed., "Impairments and Other
487 Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054,
488 DOI 10.17487/RFC4054, May 2005,
489 .
491 [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
492 DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005,
493 .
495 [RFC4209] Fredette, A., Ed. and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management
496 Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
497 (DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209,
498 DOI 10.17487/RFC4209, October 2005,
499 .
501 [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
502 Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
503 RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
504 .
506 12.2. Informative References
508 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
509 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
510 .
512 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
513 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
514 Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
515 DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
516 .
518 [RFC4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
519 MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
520 September 2005, .
522 Authors' Addresses
524 Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
525 Juniper
526 1194 N Mathilda Avenue
527 Sunnyvale - 94089 California
528 USA
530 Phone: +1408
531 Email: dharinih@juniper.net
533 Gert Grammel (editor)
534 Juniper
535 Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15
536 80807 Muenchen
537 Germany
539 Phone: +49 1725186386
540 Email: ggrammel@juniper.net
542 Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
543 Cisco
544 Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
545 20871 - Vimercate
546 Italy
548 Phone: +390392091462
549 Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com
551 Ruediger Kunze
552 Deutsche Telekom
553 Dddd, xx
554 Berlin
555 Germany
557 Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
558 Email: RKunze@telekom.de
559 Dieter Beller
560 Nokia
561 Lorenzstrasse, 10
562 70435 Stuttgart
563 Germany
565 Phone: +4971182143125
566 Email: Dieter.Beller@nokia.com