idnits 2.17.1
draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-03.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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (October 30, 2017) is 2370 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Experimental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Missing Reference: 'RFC4902' is mentioned on line 80, 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 302, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G694.1' is defined on line 308, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G698.2' is defined on line 313, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G709' is defined on line 319, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G872' is defined on line 324, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G874.1' is defined on line 329, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4054' is defined on line 335, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 357, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3410' is defined on line 361, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 367, 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== Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of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-07
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629
(Obsoleted by RFC 7749)
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 14 warnings (==), 2 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: Experimental Juniper
5 Expires: May 3, 2018 G. Galimberti, Ed.
6 Cisco
7 R. Kunze
8 Deutsche Telekom
9 October 30, 2017
11 Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense
12 Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage
13 the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application
14 draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-03
16 Abstract
18 This experimental memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for
19 managing Optical parameters associated with Wavelength Division
20 Multiplexing (WDM) adding a set of parameters related to multicarrier
21 DWDM interfaces to be used in Spectrum Switched Optical Networks
22 (sson).
24 Copyright Notice
26 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
27 document authors. All rights reserved.
29 Status of This Memo
31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
37 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
44 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
46 Copyright Notice
48 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
49 document authors. All rights reserved.
51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
53 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
54 publication of this document. Please review these documents
55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
59 described in the Simplified BSD License.
61 Table of Contents
63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
64 2. DWDM line system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
65 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
66 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
67 5. Multi carrier Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
68 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
69 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
70 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
71 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
72 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
73 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
76 1. Introduction
78 This experimental extension addresses the use cases described by
79 "draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk" to the Spectrum Switched
80 Optical Network applications. LMP [RFC4902] provides link property
81 correlation capabilities that can be used between a transceiver
82 device and an Optical Line System (OLS) device. Link property
83 correlation is a procedure by which, intrinsic parameters and
84 capabilities are exchanged between two ends of a link. Link property
85 correlation as defined in RFC3591 allows either end of the link to
86 supervise the received signal and operate within a commonly
87 understood parameter window. Here the term 'link' refers in
88 particular to the attachment link between OXC and OLS (see Figure 1).
89 The relevant novelty is the interface configuration having a multiple
90 carrier where the client signal is spread on. The parameters are not
91 yet fully defined by ITU-T so this document can jast be seen as an
92 experimental proposal not binding operators and vendors to comply and
93 implement them
95 2. DWDM line system
97 Figure 1 shows a set of reference points (Rs and Ss), for a single-
98 channel connection between transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx)
99 devices. Here the DWDM network elements in between those devices
100 include an Optical Multiplexer (OM) and an Optical Demultiplexer
101 (OD). In addition it may include one or more Optical Amplifiers (OA)
102 and one or more Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers (OADM).
104 +-------------------------------------------------+
105 Ss | DWDM Network Elements | Rs
106 +--+ | | | \ / | | | +--+
107 Tx L1--|->| \ +------+ +------+ / |--|-->Rx L1
108 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
109 +---+ | | FX | | | | FLEX | | | | FX | | +--+
110 Tx L2--|->| OM |-->|------|->|ROADM |--|------|->| OD |--|-->Rx L2
111 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+
112 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
113 Tx L3--|->| / | DWDM | | ^ | DWDM | \ |--|-->Rx L3
114 +---+ | | / | Link +----|--|----+ Link | \ | | +--+
115 +-----------+ | | +----------+
116 +--+ +--+
117 | |
118 Rs v | Ss
119 +-----+ +-----+
120 |RxLx | |TxLx |
121 +-----+ +-----+
123 Ss = Sender reference point at the DWDM network element
124 tributary output, this can be a set of multiple transceivers
125 carrying the same client payload.
126 Rs = Receiver reference point at the DWDM network element
127 tributary input this can be a set of multiple transceivers
128 carrying the same client payload.
130 FX OM = Flex-Spectrum Optical Mux
131 FX OD = Flex-Spectrum Optical Demux
132 Flex ROADM = Flex-Spectrum Optical Add Drop Mux (reconfigurable)
134 extending Fig. 5.1/G.698.2
136 Figure 1: Linear Single Channel approach
138 Figure 2 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] )
140 +------+ Ss +------+ +------+ Rs +------+
141 | | ----- | | | | ----- | |
142 | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
143 | | ----- | | | | ----- | |
144 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
145 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
146 | | | | | |
147 | +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ |
148 | |
149 +----------------------LMP-----------------------+
151 OXC : is an entity that contains Multiple carriers transponders
152 OLS : generic Flex-Spectrum optical system, it can be -
153 Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add
154 Drop Mux, Amplifier etc.
155 OLS to OLS: represents the Optical Multiplex section
156
157 Rs/Ss : reference points in between the OXC and the OLS
159 Figure 2: Extended LMP Model
161 3. Use Cases
163 The set of paramentes exchanged between is to support the Spectrum
164 Switched Optical Network in therms of Number of Sub-carriers
165 available at the transceiver and their characteristics to provide the
166 SSON control plane all the information suitable to calculate the path
167 and the optical feasibility
169 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol
171 This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow a set of
172 characteristic parameters, to be exchanged between a router or
173 optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached.
174 In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects
175 to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and
176 [RFC6205]. The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different
177 Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and
178 status of their peer. These messages and their usage are defined in
179 subsequent sections of this document.
181 The following new messages are defined for the SSON extension
182 - Multi carrier Transceiver (sub-object Type = TBA)
184 5. Multi carrier Transceiver
186 These are a set of general parameters extending the description in
187 [G698.2] and [G.694.1]. ITU-T working groups are working to detail
188 most of parameters and an update of the TLV may be required.
190 The general parameters are
191 1. Modulation identifier: indicates the Transceiver capabilities
192 to support a single or multiple modulation format like:
193 BPSK (1), DC-DP-BSPSK, QPSK, DP-QPSK, QAM16, DP-QAM16,
194 DC-DP-QAM16, 64QAM.
195 2. FEC: indicates the FEC types the transceiver can support
196 3. baud rate: number of symbols rate, besically this identify the
197 channel frequency
198 4. Num Carriers: number of subcarriers the trasceiver can support
199 and can be "mapped" in a Mediachannel
200 5. Bits/symbol: number of bit per simbol (aka spectral efficiency)
201 6. Subcarrier band (minimum distance between subcarriers) in GHz
202 7. Guard band (required guard band at the side of media channel)
203 8. Sub-carrier TX Power: output optical power the transceiver can
204 provide
205 9. Sub-carrier RX Power: Input optical power Range the transceiver
206 can support, this is known also as Sensitivity
207 10. Sub-carrier OSNR robustness
209 Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
210 TBA) is as follows:
212 0 1 2 3
213 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
214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
215 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
217 |S|I| Modulation ID | FEC |
218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
219 | baud rate (Symbol Rate) |
220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
221 | Number of subcarriers | Bit/Symbol |
222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
223 | subcarrier band | guard band |
224 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
225 | sub-carrier TX power |
226 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
227 | sub-carrier RX power HIGH |
228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
229 | sub-carrier RX power LOW |
230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
231 | Max-pol-power-difference |
232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
233 | Max-pol-skew-difference |
234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
235 | sub-carrier OSNR |
236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
238 - S: standardized format;
239 - I: input / output (1 / 0)
240 - Modulation Format: is the modulation type:
241 BPSK, DC DP BSPSK, QPSK, DP QPSK, 8QAM, 16QAM, 64QAM,
242 Hybrid, etc.
243 - (ITU-T reference)
244 - value > 32768 (first bit is 1): custom defined values
245 Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
246 - FEC: the signal Forward Error Corrections type (16-bit
247 unsigned integer), the defined values are:
248 - (ITU-T reference)
249 - 32768 (first bit is 1): custom defined values
250 Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
251 - Baud Rate: the signal symbol rate (IEEE 32-bit float,
252 in bauds/s)
253 Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
254 - Num Carriers
255 - Bits/symbol
256 - Subcarrier band (minimum distance between subcarriers)
257 - Guard band (required guard band at the side of media channel)
258 - Sub-carrier Transmit Power
259 - Sub-carrier Receive HIGH Power range (Sensitivity)
260 - Sub-carrier Receive LOW Power range (Sensitivity)
261 - Sub-carrier OSNR robustness
262 - Max-pol-power-difference
263 - Max-pol-skew-difference
265 Figure 3: Multi carrier Transceiver
267 6. Security Considerations
269 LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204]. This
270 document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing
271 LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209]. This
272 document does not introduce new security considerations.
274 7. IANA Considerations
275 LMP defines the following name spaces and
276 the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:
278 - LMP Message Type
279 - LMP Object Class
280 - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
281 - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
282 This memo introduces the following new assignments:
284 LMP Sub-Object Class names:
286 under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in )
287 - Multi carrier Transceiver (sub-object Type = TBA)
289 8. Contributors
291 Zafar Ali
292 Cisco
293 3000 Innovation Drive
294 KANATA
295 ONTARIO K2K 3E8
296 zali@cisco.com
298 9. References
300 9.1. Normative References
302 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk]
303 Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., Galimberti, G., and J.
304 Meuric, "A framework for Management and Control of DWDM
305 optical interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-
306 mng-ctrl-fwk-07 (work in progress), September 2017.
308 [ITU.G694.1]
309 International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
310 for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
311 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.
313 [ITU.G698.2]
314 International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
315 multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
316 applications with single channel optical interfaces",
317 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.
319 [ITU.G709]
320 International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
321 Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
322 G.709, February 2012.
324 [ITU.G872]
325 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
326 optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
327 October 2012.
329 [ITU.G874.1]
330 International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
331 network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
332 model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
333 G.874.1, October 2012.
335 [RFC4054] Strand, J., Ed. and A. Chiu, Ed., "Impairments and Other
336 Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054,
337 DOI 10.17487/RFC4054, May 2005,
338 .
340 [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
341 DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005,
342 .
344 [RFC4209] Fredette, A., Ed. and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management
345 Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
346 (DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209,
347 DOI 10.17487/RFC4209, October 2005,
348 .
350 [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
351 Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
352 RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
353 .
355 9.2. Informative References
357 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
358 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
359 .
361 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
362 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
363 Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
364 DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
365 .
367 [RFC4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
368 MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
369 September 2005, .
371 Authors' Addresses
373 Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
374 Juniper
375 1194 N Mathilda Avenue
376 Sunnyvale - 94089 California
377 USA
379 Phone: +1408
380 Email: dharinih@juniper.net
382 Gert Grammel (editor)
383 Juniper
384 Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15
385 80807 Muenchen
386 Germany
388 Phone: +49 1725186386
389 Email: ggrammel@juniper.net
391 Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
392 Cisco
393 Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
394 20871 - Vimercate
395 Italy
397 Phone: +390392091462
398 Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com
400 Ruediger Kunze
401 Deutsche Telekom
402 Dddd, xx
403 Berlin
404 Germany
406 Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
407 Email: RKunze@telekom.de