idnits 2.17.1 draft-hussain-ccamp-super-channel-param-sig-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([6], [7]), 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 == Line 211 has weird spacing: '...ontains stand...' == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (October 8, 2013) is 3846 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 262, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6205' is defined on line 269, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6163' is defined on line 273, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 287, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 291, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 294, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6163 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Iftekhar Hussain 2 Internet Draft Vinayak Dangui 3 Intended status: Standard Track Michael VanLeeuwen 4 Expires: April 2014 Marco Sosa 5 Infinera 7 October 8, 2013 9 Super-Channel Optical Parameters GMPLS Signaling Extensions 10 draft-hussain-ccamp-super-channel-param-sig-03.txt 12 Abstract 14 This document builds on [6][7] and defines GMPLS signaling 15 extensions to carry super-channel optical parameters for efficient 16 spectrum assignment on flexible grid networks. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 25 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 26 Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 29 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 30 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 31 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 39 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 40 2013 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2014. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 54 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 55 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 56 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 57 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction...................................................2 62 2. Terminology....................................................3 63 3. GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Super-Channel Optical Parameters3 64 3.1. Option 1: Encode Super-Channel Optical Parameters in the 65 RSVP FLOWSPEC or TSPEC Object..................................4 66 3.2. Option 2: Encode the Aforementioned Information along with 67 the Super-Channel Label........................................6 68 4. Procedure for Signaling Super-Channel Optical Parameters.......6 69 5. TLV Encoding Examples..........................................6 70 6. Security Considerations........................................6 71 7. IANA Considerations............................................6 72 8. References.....................................................6 73 8.1. Normative References......................................6 74 8.2. Informative References....................................7 75 9. Acknowledgments................................................8 77 1. Introduction 79 Future transport systems are expected to support service upgrades to 80 data rates of 1 Tbps and beyond. To scale networks beyond 100Gbps, 81 multi-carrier super-channels coupled with advanced multi-level 82 modulation formats and flexible channel spectrum bandwidth 83 allocation schemes have become pivotal for future spectral efficient 84 transport network architectures [1,2]. 86 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 87 2013 89 The coexistence of super-channels using different modulation formats 90 on the same optical fiber network infrastructure may have a 91 detrimental effect on the Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNR) of 92 adjacent super-channels due to interference such as cross-phase 93 modulation. Therefore, it may be highly desirable to be able to 94 evaluate the mutual impact of the existing and new super-channels on 95 each other's quality of transmission (e.g., bit error rate) before 96 establishing new super-channels. 98 This document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to convey super- 99 channel optical parameters such as number of carriers, each 100 carrier's center frequency, modulation, and FEC type in the RSVP 101 message. This allows nodes along the super-channel path to learn the 102 aforementioned super-channel optical characteristics and in turn 103 advertise this information to other nodes in the network using GMPLS 104 routing extensions defined in [9]. 106 2. Terminology 108 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 109 NOT","SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in 110 this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 111 [RFC2119]. 113 3. GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Super-Channel Optical Parameters 115 This document defines extensions for signaling super-channel optical 116 parameters including: 118 o Number of Carriers 120 o Carrier Center Frequency (THz) 122 o Carrier Modulation 124 o Carrier Baudrate (Gbit/s) 126 o Carrier FEC Type 128 This document defines two options for encoding this information. 130 [Editor's note: to allow full flexibility we have included two 131 encoding options] 133 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 134 2013 136 3.1. Option 1: Encode Super-Channel Optical Parameters in the RSVP 137 FLOWSPEC or TSPEC Object 139 0 1 2 3 140 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 1 141 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 142 | TLV Type | Length | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | Number of Carriers | Reserved | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | ~ 147 ~ ~ 148 ~ One or more Carrier sub-TLVs ~ 149 ~ | 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 Figure 1: Super-Channel Carriers TLV Format 154 0 1 2 3 155 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 1 156 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 157 | TLV Type | Length | 158 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 159 | ~ 160 ~ ~ 161 ~ Zero or more Carrier sub-sub-TLVs ~ 162 ~ | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 Figure 2: Carrier sub-TLV Format. 167 0 1 2 3 168 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 1 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 |S|I| TLV Type | Length | 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Center Frequency (THz) | Reserved | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 Figure 3: Carrier Center Frequency sub-sub-TLV. 177 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 178 2013 180 0 1 2 3 181 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 1 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 |S|I| TLV Type | Length | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 185 | Modulation ID | Baudrate (Gbit/s) | 186 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 187 | ~ 188 ~ Possible additional modulation parameters ~ 189 ~ | 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 Figure 4: Carrier Modulation sub-sub-TLV. 194 0 1 2 3 195 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 1 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 |S|I| TLV Type | Length | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | FEC ID | Reserved | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 | ~ 202 ~ Possible additional FEC ID parameters ~ 203 ~ | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 Figure 5: Carrier FEC sub-sub-TLV. 208 Where: 210 o When the S bit in a TLV is set to 1 it indicates that the TLV 211 contains standardized fields (e.g., Modulation, FEC Type) and 212 when the S bit is set to 0 in a TLV it indicates a vendor 213 specific TLV (see [8]) 215 o Modulation ID, FEC ID, and I fields are similar to as defined in 216 [8] 218 o The Length field in the super-channel Carriers TLV specifies the 219 length in octets of the complete set of TLVs including the set of 220 sub-TLVs that follow. 222 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 223 2013 225 3.2. Option 2: Encode the Aforementioned Information along with the 226 Super-Channel Label 228 For example use Super-Channel Label defined in [7] to also encode 229 Super-Channel Carriers TLV, the Carrier sub-TLVs, and the associated 230 set of sub-sub-TLVs defined in the previous section. 232 4. Procedure for Signaling Super-Channel Optical Parameters 234 o The optical parameters of the super-channel are signaled in the 235 RSVP message using encoding option 1 (or option 2). 237 o During a new super-channel establishment, each node along the new 238 super-channel setup path allocates the required number of slices 239 and also learns the associated set of signaled super-channel 240 optical parameters. 242 5. TLV Encoding Examples 244 To be added later. 246 6. Security Considerations 248 250 7. IANA Considerations 252 IANA needs to assign a new Grid field value to represent ITU-T Flex- 253 Grid. 255 8. References 257 8.1. Normative References 259 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 260 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 262 [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 263 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 264 3471, January 2003. 266 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 267 2013 269 [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed., "Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switch- 270 Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, March 271 2011. 273 [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation 274 Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical 275 Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011 277 8.2. Informative References 279 [1] Gringeri, S., Basch, B. Shukla,V. Egorov, R. and Tiejun J. 280 Xia, "Flexible Architectures for Optical Transport Nodes and 281 Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, July 2010, pp. 40-50 283 [2] M. Jinno et. al., "Spectrum-Efficient and Scalable Elastic 284 Optical Path Network: Architecture, Benefits and Enabling 285 Technologies", IEEE Comm. Mag., Nov. 2009, pp. 66-73. 287 [3] S. Chandrasekhar and X. Liu, "Terabit Super-Channels for High 288 Spectral Efficiency Transmission",in Proc. ECOC 2010, paper 289 Tu.3.C.5, Torino (Italy), September 2010. 291 [4] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM 292 applications: DWDM frequency grid", June 2002 294 [5] [4] "Finisar to Demonstrate Flexgrid(TM) WSS Technology at 295 ECOC 2010", press release. 297 [6] Abinder D., et.al., "OSPFTE extension to support GMPLS for 298 Flex Grid", draft-dhillon-ccamp-super-channel-ospfte-ext, work 299 in progress, work in progress, November 2011. 301 [7] Iftekhar H., et.al., "Generalized Label for Super-Channel 302 Assignment on Flexible Grid", draft-hussain-ccamp-super- 303 channel-label, work in progress, October 2011. 305 [8] G. Bernstein, et.al., "Routing and Wavelength Assignment 306 Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical 307 Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, work in progress, 308 October 2011. 310 [9] Iftekhar H., et.al., "Super-Channel Optical Parameters GMPLS 311 Routing Extensions", draft-hussain-ccamp-super-channel-param- 312 ospfte, work in progress, March 2012. 314 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 315 2013 317 9. Acknowledgments 319 321 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 322 2013 324 Authors' Addresses 326 Iftekhar Hussain 327 Infinera 328 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 330 Email: ihussain@infinera.com 332 Vinayak Dangui 333 Infinera 334 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 336 Email: vdangui@infinera.com 338 Michael VanLeeuwen 339 Infinera 340 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 342 Email: MVanleeuwen@infinera.com 344 Marco Sosa 345 Infinera 346 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 348 Email: msosa@infinera.com 350 Internet-Draft Super-Channel Parameters Signaling Extensions October 351 2013 353 Contributor's Addresses 355 Abinder Dhillon 356 Infinera 357 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 359 Email: adhillon@infinera.com 361 Rajan Rao 362 Infinera 363 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 365 Email: rrao@infinera.com 367 Biao Lu 368 Infinera 369 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 371 Email: blu@infinera.com 373 Subhendu Chattopadhyay 374 Infinera 375 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 377 Email: schattopadhyay@infinera.com 379 Harpreet Uppal 380 Infinera 381 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 383 Email: harpreet.uppal@infinera.com 385 Zhong Pan 386 Infinera 387 140 Caspian Ct., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 389 Email: zpan@infinera.com