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in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 367, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-07 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629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