idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-00.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 are 7 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 17, 2011) is 4567 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: 'G.709-V3' is mentioned on line 162, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'OTN-V3' is mentioned on line 168, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4606' is mentioned on line 344, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'OTN-FRWK' is mentioned on line 667, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'OTN-info' is defined on line 800, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G709-V2' is defined on line 817, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G798-V2' is defined on line 820, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G798-V3' is defined on line 824, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework (ref. 'OTN-frwk') == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-00 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model (ref. 'OTN-info') -- No information found for draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'OTN-LMP' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G709-V3' Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Fatai Zhang, Ed. 2 Internet Draft Huawei 3 Category: Standards Track Guoying Zhang 4 CATR 5 Sergio Belotti 6 Alcatel-Lucent 7 D. Ceccarelli 8 Ericsson 9 Khuzema Pithewan 10 Infinera 11 Expires: April 17, 2012 October 17, 2011 13 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 14 Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control 16 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-00.txt 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 21 the 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 months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2012. 41 Abstract 43 Recent progress in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 standardization has 44 introduced new ODU containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) and 45 enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility. Several 46 recent documents have proposed ways to modify GMPLS signaling 47 protocols to support these new OTN features. 49 It is important that a single solution is developed for use in GMPLS 50 signaling and routing protocols. This solution must support ODUk 51 multiplexing capabilities, address all of the new features, be 52 acceptable to all equipment vendors, and be extensible considering 53 continued OTN evolution. 55 This document describes the extensions to the Generalized Multi- 56 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to control the evolving 57 Optical Transport Networks (OTN) addressing ODUk multiplexing and new 58 features including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex. 60 Conventions used in this document 62 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 63 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 64 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 66 Table of Contents 68 1. Introduction .................................................. 3 69 2. Terminology ................................................... 4 70 3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 4 71 4. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 5 72 4.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter .................. 6 73 4.2. Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter ................ 7 74 5. Generalized Label ............................................. 8 75 5.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label .................. 8 76 5.2. Examples ................................................ 11 77 5.3. Label Distribution Procedure ............................ 12 78 5.3.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 13 79 5.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 14 80 5.5. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations ..... 14 81 6. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy ............................ 15 82 6.1. ODU FA-LSP Creation ..................................... 17 83 7. Security Considerations ...................................... 17 84 8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 17 85 9. References ................................................... 17 86 9.1. Normative References .................................... 17 87 9.2. Informative References .................................. 19 89 10. Contributors ............................................... 19 90 11. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 20 91 12. Acknowledgment ............................................. 22 93 1. Introduction 95 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] extends 96 MPLS to include Layer-2 Switching (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex 97 (e.g., SONET/SDH, PDH, and ODU), Wavelength (OCh, Lambdas) Switching, 98 and Spatial Switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port 99 or fiber). [RFC3471] presents a functional description of the 100 extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) signaling 101 required to support Generalized MPLS. RSVP-TE-specific formats and 102 mechanisms and technology specific details are defined in [RFC3473]. 104 With the evolution and deployment of G.709 technology, it is 105 necessary that appropriate enhanced control technology support be 106 provided for G.709. [RFC4328] describes the control technology 107 details that are specific to foundation G.709 Optical Transport 108 Networks (OTN), as specified in the ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709- 109 V1], for ODUk deployments without multiplexing. 111 In addition to increasing need to support ODUk multiplexing, the 112 evolution of OTN has introduced additional containers and new 113 flexibility. For example, ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 containers and ODUflex 114 are developed in [G709-V3]. 116 In addition, the following issues require consideration: 118 - Support for hitless adjustment of ODUflex, which is to be 119 specified in ITU-T G.hao. 121 - Support for Tributary Port Number. The Tributary Port Number 122 has to be negotiated on each link for flexible assignment of 123 tributary ports to tributary slots in case of LO-ODU over HO- 124 ODU (e.g., ODU2 into ODU3). 126 Therefore, it is clear that [RFC4328] has to be updated or superceded 127 in order to support ODUk multiplexing, as well as other ODU 128 enhancements introduced by evolution of OTN standards. 130 This document updates [RFC4328] extending the G.709 ODUk traffic 131 parameters and also presents a new OTN label format which is very 132 flexible and scalable. 134 2. Terminology 136 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 137 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 138 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 140 3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview 142 New features for the evolving OTN, for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 143 and ODUflex containers are specified in [G709-V3]. The corresponding 144 new signal types are summarized below: 146 - Optical Channel Transport Unit (OTUk): 147 . OTU4 149 - Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUk): 150 . ODU0 151 . ODU2e 152 . ODU4 153 . ODUflex 155 A new Tributary Slot (TS) granularity (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) is also 156 described in [G709-V3]. Thus, there are now two TS granularities for 157 the foundation OTN ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 containers. The TS granularity 158 at 2.5 Gbps is used on legacy interfaces while the new 1.25 Gbps is 159 used on the new interfaces. 161 In addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3, 4), 162 the evolving OTN [G.709-V3] encompasses the multiplexing of ODUj (j = 163 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, flex) into an ODUk (k > j), as described in Section 164 3.1.2 of [OTN-frwk]. 166 Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) of OPUk (OPUk-Xv, k = 1/2/3, X = 1...256) 167 is also supported by [OTN-V3]. Note that VCAT of OPU0 / OPU2e / OPU4 168 / OPUflex is not supported per [OTN-V3]. 170 [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control 171 for G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTN) [G709-V1]. However, 172 [RFC4328] needs to be updated because it does not provide the means 173 to signal all the new signal types and related mapping and 174 multiplexing functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the 175 deprecated auto-MSI mode which assumes that the Tributary Port Number 176 is automatically assigned in the transmit direction and not checked 177 in the receive direction. 179 This document extends the G.709 traffic parameters described in 180 [RFC4328] and presents a new flexible and scalable OTN label format. 182 Additionally, procedures about Tributary Port Number assignment 183 through control plane are also provided in this document. 185 4. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 187 The traffic parameters for G.709 are defined as follows: 189 0 1 2 3 190 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 1 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | Signal Type | Tolerance | NMC | 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 | Bit_Rate | 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 The Signal Type needs to be extended in order to cover the new Signal 200 Type introduced by the evolving OTN. The new Signal Type values are 201 extended as follows: 203 Value Type 204 ----- ---- 205 0 Not significant 206 1 ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps) 207 2 ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps) 208 3 ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps) 209 4 ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps) 210 5 Reserved (for future use) 211 6 OCh at 2.5 Gbps 212 7 OCh at 10 Gbps 213 8 OCh at 40 Gbps 214 9 OCh at 100 Gbps 215 10 ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) 216 11 ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 and GE LAN) 217 12~19 Reserved (for future use) 218 20 ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 219 21 ODUflex(GFP-F), resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 220 22 ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 221 23~255 Reserved (for future use) 223 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields MUST be 224 used together to represent the actual bandwidth of ODUflex, where: 226 - The Bit_Rate field indicates the nominal bit rate of ODUflex(CBR) 227 expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single- 228 precision floating-point number (referring to [RFC4506] and 229 [IEEE]). 231 - The Tolerance field indicates the bit rate tolerance (part per 232 million, ppm) of the ODUflex(CBR) encoded as an unsigned integer, 233 which is bounded in 0~100ppm. 235 For example, for an ODUflex(CBR) service with Bit_Rate = 2.5Gbps and 236 Tolerance = 100ppm, the actual bandwidth of the ODUflex is: 238 2.5Gbps * (1 +/- 100ppm) 240 In case of other ODUk signal types, the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields 241 are not necessary and MUST be set to 0. 243 The usage of the NMC, NVC and Multiplier (MT) fields are the same as 244 [RFC4328]. 246 4.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter 248 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in 249 the ODUflex traffic parameter MUST be used to determine the total 250 number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here: 252 N = Ceiling of 254 ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance) 255 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 256 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 258 Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR) 259 traffic parameter can allocate precise number of tributary slots and 260 set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex service. 262 Table 1 below shows the actual bandwidth of the tributary slot of 263 ODUk (in Gbps), referring to [G709-V3]. 265 Table 1 - Actual TS bandwidth of ODUk 267 ODUk Minimum Nominal Maximum 268 ------------------------------------------------------- 269 ODU2 1.249 384 632 1.249 409 620 1.249 434 608 270 ODU3 1.254 678 635 1.254 703 729 1.254 728 823 271 ODU4 1.301 683 217 1.301 709 251 1.301 735 285 272 Note that: 274 Minimum bandwidth of ODUTk.ts = 275 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 277 Maximum bandwidth of ODTUk.ts = 278 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 + HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 280 Where: HO OPUk bit rate tolerance = 20ppm 282 For different ODUk, the bandwidths of the tributary slot are 283 different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be reserved 284 for the ODUflex(CBR) may not be the same on different HO ODUk links. 285 This is why the traffic parameter should bring the actual bandwidth 286 information other than the NMC field. 288 4.2. Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter 290 This section gives an example to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR) 291 traffic parameter. 293 As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service 294 requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C. 295 In other words, the ODUflex traffic parameter indicates that Signal 296 Type is 33 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is 297 100ppm. 299 +-----+ +---------+ +-----+ 300 | +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | 301 | +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+ | 302 | +=============+/| flex+-+=============+ | 303 | +-------------+ | |\+=============+ | 304 | +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | 305 | | | | | | 306 | | ....... | | ....... | | 307 | A +-------------+ B +-------------+ C | 308 +-----+ HO ODU4 +---------+ HO ODU2 +-----+ 310 =========: TS occupied by ODUflex 311 ---------: free TS 313 Figure 1 - Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter 315 - On the HO ODU4 link between node A and B: 317 The maximum bandwidth of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 318 100ppm), and the minimum bandwidth of the tributary slot of ODU4 319 equals 1.301 683 217Gbps, so the total number of tributary slots 320 N1 to be reserved on this link is: 322 N1 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1.301 683 217) = 2 324 - On the HO ODU2 link between node B and C: 326 The maximum bandwidth of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 327 100ppm), and the minimum bandwidth of the tributary slot of ODU2 328 equals 1.249 384 632Gbps, so the total number of tributary slots 329 N2 to be reserved on this link is: 331 N2 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1.249 384 632) = 3 333 5. Generalized Label 335 [RFC3471] has defined the Generalized Label which extends the 336 traditional label by allowing the representation of not only labels 337 which are sent in-band with associated data packets, but also labels 338 which identify time-slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed 339 positions. The format of the corresponding RSVP-TE Generalized Label 340 object is defined in the Section 2.3 of [RFC3473]. 342 However, for different technologies, we usually need use specific 343 label rather than the Generalized Label. For example, the label 344 format described in [RFC4606] could be used for SDH/SONET, the label 345 format in [RFC4328] for G.709. 347 5.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label 349 In order to be compatible with new types of ODU signal and new types 350 of tributary slot, the following new ODU label format MUST be used: 352 0 1 2 3 353 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 1 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 | TPN | Reserved | Length | 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 357 ~ Bit Map ......... ~ 358 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 359 The ODU Generalized Label is used to indicate how the LO ODUj signal 360 is multiplexed into the HO ODUk link. Note that the LO OUDj signal 361 type is indicated by traffic parameters, while the type of HO ODUk 362 link can be figured out locally according to the identifier of the 363 selected interface carried in the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. 365 TPN (12 bits): indicates the Tributary Port Number (TPN) for the 366 assigned Tributary Slot(s). 368 - In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, only the 369 lower 6 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of 370 TPN MUST be set to 0. 372 - In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU4, only the lower 7 373 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of TPN 374 MUST be set to 0. 376 - In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed 377 and this field MUST be set to 0. 379 As per [G709-V3], The TPN is used to allow for correct demultiplexing 380 in the data plane. When an LO ODUj is multiplexed into HO ODUk 381 occupying one or more TSs, a new TPN value is configured at the two 382 ends of the HO ODUk link and is put into the related MSI byte(s) in 383 the OPUk overhead at the (traffic) ingress end of the link, so that 384 the other end of the link can learn which TS(s) is/are used by the LO 385 ODUj in the data plane. 387 According to [G709-V3], the TPN field MUST be set as according to the 388 following tables: 390 Table 2 - TPN Assignment Rules (2.5Gbps TS granularity) 391 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 392 |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules | 393 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 394 | ODU2 | ODU1 |1~4 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 | 395 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 396 | | ODU1 |1~16|Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 | 397 | ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 398 | | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs | 399 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 400 Table 3 - TPN Assignment Rules (1.25Gbps TS granularity) 401 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 402 |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules | 403 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 404 | ODU1 | ODU0 |1~2 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU0 | 405 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 406 | | ODU1 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs | 407 | ODU2 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 408 | |ODU0 & |1~8 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and | 409 | |ODUflex| |ODUflexes' TPNs | 410 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 411 | | ODU1 |1~16|Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs | 412 | +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 413 | | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs | 414 | ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 415 | |ODU0 & | |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and | 416 | |ODU2e &|1~32|ODU2es and ODUflexes' TPNs | 417 | |ODUflex| | | 418 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 419 | ODU4 |Any ODU|1~80|Flexible, != ANY other existing LO ODUs' TPNs | 420 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 422 Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN is not 423 corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-V3]. 425 Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bit of the Bit Map field, 426 i.e., the total number of TS in the HO ODUk link. 428 In case of an ODUk mapped into OTUk, there is no need to indicate 429 which tributary slots will be used, so the length field MUST be set 430 to 0. 432 Bit Map (variable): indicates which tributary slots in HO ODUk that 433 the LO ODUj will be multiplexed into. The sequence of the Bit Map is 434 consistent with the sequence of the tributary slots in HO ODUk. Each 435 bit in the bit map represents the corresponding tributary slot in HO 436 ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot 437 will be used by LO ODUj or not. 439 Padded bits are added behind the Bit Map to make the whole label a 440 multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padded bit MUST be set to 0 and 441 MUST be ignored. 443 Note that the Length field in the label format can also be used to 444 indicate the TS type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps 445 or 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP 446 Object. In some cases when there is no LMP or routing to make the two 447 end points of the link to know the TSG, the TSG information used by 448 another end can be deduced from the label format. For example, for HO 449 ODU2 link, the value of the length filed will be 4 or 8, which 450 indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively. 452 5.2. Examples 454 The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label 455 format described in the previous sections of this document. 457 (1) ODUk into OTUk mapping: 459 In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label 460 indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the 461 corresponding OTUk. The following example label indicates an ODU1 462 mapped into OTU1. 464 0 1 2 3 465 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 1 466 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 467 | TPN = 0 | Reserved | Length = 0 | 468 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 470 (2) ODUj into ODUk multiplexing: 472 In such conditions, this label indicates that an ODUj is multiplexed 473 into several tributary slots of OPUk and then mapped into OTUk. Some 474 instances are shown as follow: 476 - ODU0 into ODU2 Multiplexing: 478 0 1 2 3 479 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 1 480 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 481 | TPN = 2 | Reserved | Length = 8 | 482 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 483 |0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 484 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 486 This above label indicates an ODU0 multiplexed into the second 487 tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 488 type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 2. 490 - ODU1 into ODU2 Multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity: 492 0 1 2 3 493 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 1 494 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 495 | TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 8 | 496 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 497 |0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 498 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 500 This above label indicates an ODU1 multiplexed into the 2nd and the 501 4th tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 502 type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 1. 504 - ODU2 into ODU3 Multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity: 506 0 1 2 3 507 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 1 508 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 509 | TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 16 | 510 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 511 |0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 512 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 514 This above label indicates an ODU2 multiplexed into the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 515 and 7th tributary slot of ODU3, wherein there are 16 TS in ODU3 (i.e., 516 the type of the tributary slot is 2.5Gbps), and the TPN value is 1. 518 5.3. Label Distribution Procedure 520 This document does not change the existing label distribution 521 procedures [RFC4328] for GMPLS except that the new ODUk label MUST be 522 processed as follows. 524 When a node receives a generalized label request for setting up an 525 ODUj LSP from its upstream neighbor node, the node MUST generate an 526 ODU label according to the signal type of the requested LSP and the 527 free resources (i.e., free tributary slots of ODUk) that will be 528 reserved for the LSP, and send the label to its upstream neighbor 529 node. 531 In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly determine 532 the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal type and the 533 tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to 1 in the Bit 534 Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary slots. The node 535 MUST also assign a valid TPN, which does not collide with other TPN 536 value used by existing LO ODU connections in the selected HO ODU link, 537 and configure the expected multiplex structure identifier (ExMSI) 538 using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN is filled into the label. 540 In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the node only needs to fill the ODUj 541 and the ODUk fields with corresponding values in the label. Other 542 bits are reserved and MUST be set to 0. 544 In order to process a received ODU label, the node MUST firstly learn 545 which ODU signal type is multiplexed or mapped into which ODU signal 546 type accordingly to the traffic parameters and the IF_ID RSVP_HOP 547 Object in the received message. 549 In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST retrieve the 550 reserved tributary slots in the ODUk by its downstream neighbor node 551 according to the position of the bits that are set to 1 in the Bit 552 Map field. The node determines the TS type (according to the total TS 553 number of the ODUk, or pre-configured TS type), so that the node, 554 based on the TS type, can multiplex the ODUj into the ODUk. The node 555 MUST also retrieve the TPN value assigned by its downstream neighbor 556 node from the label, and fill the TPN into the related MSI byte(s) in 557 the OPUk overhead in the data plane, so that the downstream neighbor 558 node can check whether the TPN received from the data plane is 559 consistent with the ExMSI and determine whether there is any mismatch 560 defect. 562 In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the size of Bit Map field MUST be 0 563 and no additional procedure is needed. 565 Note that the procedures of other label related objects (e.g., 566 Upstream Label, Label Set) are similar to the one described above. 568 Note also that the TPN in the label_ERO MAY not be assigned (i.e., 569 TPN field = 0) if the TPN is requested to be assigned locally. 571 5.3.1. Notification on Label Error 573 When receiving an ODUk label from the neighbor node, the node SHOULD 574 check the integrity of the label. An error message containing an 575 "Unacceptable label value" indication ([RFC3209]) SHOULD be sent if 576 one of the following cases occurs: 578 - Invalid value in the length field. 580 - The selected link only supports 2.5Gbps TS granularity while the 581 Length field in the label along with ODUk signal type indicates 582 the 1.25Gbps TS granularity; 584 - The label includes an invalid TPN value that breaks the TPN 585 assignment rules; 587 - The reserved resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map 588 field) do not match with the Traffic Parameters. 590 5.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication 592 As per [VCAT], the VCGs can be created using Co-Signaled style or 593 Multiple LSPs style. 595 In case of Co-Signaled style, the explicit ordered list of all labels 596 reflects the order of VCG members, which is similar to [RFC4328]. In 597 case of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (NVC > 1), the 598 first label indicates the components of the first virtually 599 concatenated signal; the second label indicates the components of the 600 second virtually concatenated signal; and so on. In case of 601 multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT > 1), 602 the first label indicates the components of the first multiplexed 603 virtually concatenated signal; the second label indicates components 604 of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; and so on. 606 In case of Multiple LSPs style, multiple control plane LSPs are 607 created with a single VCG and the VCAT Call can be used to associate 608 the control plane LSPs. The procedures are similar to section 6 of 609 [VCAT]. 611 5.5. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations 613 Since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in the network for the nodes 614 that support [G709-V1], we call nodes supporting [RFC4328] "legacy 615 nodes". Backward compatibility SHOULD be taken into consideration 616 when the new nodes (i.e., nodes that support RSVP-TE extensions 617 defined in this document) and the legacy nodes are interworking. 619 For backward compatibility consideration, the new node SHOULD have 620 the ability to generate and parse legacy labels. 622 o A legacy node always generates and sends legacy label to its 623 upstream node, no matter the upstream node is new or legacy, as 624 described in [RFC4328]. 626 o A new node SHOULD generate and send legacy labels if its upstream 627 node is a legacy one, and generate and send new label if its 628 upstream node is a new one. 630 One backward compatibility example is shown in Figure 2: 632 Path Path Path Path 633 +-----+ ----> +-----+ ----> +------+ ----> +------+ ----> +-----+ 634 | | | | | | | | | | 635 | A +-------+ B +-------+ C +-------+ D +-------+ E | 636 | new | | new | |legacy| |legacy| | new | 637 +-----+ <---- +-----+ <---- +------+ <---- +------+ <---- +-----+ 638 Resv Resv Resv Resv 639 (new label) (legacy label) (legacy label) (legacy label) 641 Figure 2 - Backwards compatibility example 643 As described above, for backward compatibility considerations, it is 644 necessary for a new node to know whether the neighbor node is new or 645 legacy. 647 One optional method is manual configuration, but it is recommended to 648 use LMP to discover the capability of the neighbor node automatically, 649 as described in [OTN-LMP]. 651 When performing the HO ODU link capability negotiation: 653 o If the neighbor node only support the 2.5Gbps TS and only support 654 ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, the neighbor node SHOULD be treated as a legacy 655 node. 657 o If the neighbor node can support the 1.25Gbps TS, or can support 658 other LO ODU types defined in [G709-V3]), the neighbor node SHOULD 659 be treated as new node. 661 o If the neighbor node returns a LinkSummaryNack message including 662 an ERROR_CODE indicating nonsupport of HO ODU link capability 663 negotiation, the neighbor node SHOULD be treated as a legacy node. 665 6. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy 667 As described in [OTN-FRWK], one ODUj connection can be nested into 668 another ODUk (j| 683 | | | | 684 | |<---- ODU2 Connection ----->| | 685 | | | | 686 +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ 687 | N1 +---------+ N2 +=========+ N3 +=========+ N4 +---------+ N5 | 688 +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ 689 ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link 691 Figure 3 - Example of multiplexing hierarchy 693 The control plane signaling should support the provisioning of 694 hierarchical multiplexing. Two methods are provided below (taking 695 Figure 3 as example): 697 - Using the multi-layer network signaling described in [RFC4206], 698 [RFC6107] and [RFC6001] (including related modifications, if 699 needed). That is, when the signaling message for ODUO connection 700 arrives at N2, a new RSVP session between N2 and N4 is triggered 701 to create the ODU2 connection. This ODU2 connection is treated as 702 a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) after it is created. And then the 703 signaling procedure for the ODU0 connection can be continued using 704 the resource of the ODU2 FA. 706 - The ODU2 FA-LSP is created in advance based on network planning, 707 which is treated as an FA. Then the ODU0 connection can be created 708 using the resource of the ODU2 FA. In this case, the ODU2 FA-LSP 709 and inner ODU0 connections are created separately. 711 For both methods, when creating an FA-LSP(e.g., ODU2 FA-LSP), the 712 penultimate hop needs to choose a correct outgoing interface for the 713 ODU2 connection, so that the destination node can support 714 multiplexing and de-multiplexing LO ODU signal(e.g., ODU0). In order 715 to choose a correct outgoing interface for the penultimate hop of the 716 FA-LSP, multiplexing capability (i.e., what client signal type that 717 can be adapted directly to this FA-LSP) should be carried in the 718 signaling to setup this FA-LSP. In addition, when Auto_Negotiation in 719 the data plane is not enabled, TS granularity may also be needed. 721 6.1. ODU FA-LSP Creation 723 The required hierarchies and TS type for both ends of an FA-LSP is 724 for further study. 726 7. Security Considerations 728 This document introduces no new security considerations to the 729 existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473], further 730 details of the specific security measures are provided. Additionally, 731 [GMPLS-SEC] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and 732 protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. 734 8. IANA Considerations 736 - G.709 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects: 738 The traffic parameters, which are carried in the G.709 739 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects, do not require any new object 740 class and type based on [RFC4328]: 742 o G.709 SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] 744 o G.709 FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] 746 - Generalized Label Object: 748 The new defined ODU label (Section 5) is a kind of generalized 749 label. Therefore, the Class-Num and C-Type of the ODU label is 750 the same as that of generalized label described in [RFC3473], 751 i.e., Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2. 753 9. References 755 9.1. Normative References 757 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 758 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 760 [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 761 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical 762 Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006. 764 [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 765 Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001. 767 [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 768 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 769 3471, January 2003. 771 [RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 772 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 773 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 775 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 776 (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 778 [VCAT] G. Bernstein et al, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) 779 and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with 780 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", draft- 781 ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-13.txt, May 4, 2011. 783 [RFC4206] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Ed., " Label Switched Paths (LSP) 784 Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 785 (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. 787 [RFC6107] K. Shiomoto, A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically 788 Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC6107, 789 February 2011. 791 [RFC6001] Dimitri Papadimitriou et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol 792 Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer 793 and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC6001, February 21, 794 2010. 796 [OTN-frwk] Fatai Zhang et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of 797 G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- 798 g709-framework-04.txt, March 11, 2011. 800 [OTN-info] S. Belotti et al, "Information model for G.709 Optical 801 Transport Networks (OTN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info- 802 model-00.txt, April 18, 2011. 804 [OTN-LMP] Fatai Zhang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) 805 extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft- 806 zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery-04.txt, April 6, 2011. 808 [G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN) 809 ", G.709/Y.1331, December 2009. 811 9.2. Informative References 813 [G709-V1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," 814 G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001 815 (November 2001). 817 [G709-V2] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," 818 G.709 Recommendation, March 2003. 820 [G798-V2] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network 821 hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798, December 822 2006. 824 [G798-V3] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network 825 hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798v3, consented 826 June 2010. 828 [RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation 829 Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006. 831 [IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", 832 ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and 833 Electronics Engineers, August 1985. 835 [GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 836 Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009. 838 10. Contributors 840 Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs 841 Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com 843 Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent 844 Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com 846 Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies 847 Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com 848 Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson 849 Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com 851 Lyndon Ong, Ciena 852 Email: lyong@ciena.com 854 Biao Lu, infinera 855 Email: blu@infinera.com 857 11. Authors' Addresses 859 Fatai Zhang (editor) 860 Huawei Technologies 861 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 862 Bantian, Longgang District 863 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 864 Phone: +86-755-28972912 865 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 867 Guoying Zhang 868 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 869 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 870 Phone: +86-10-68094272 871 Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn 873 Sergio Belotti 874 Alcatel-Lucent 875 Optics CTO 876 Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy 877 +39 039 6863033 878 Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it 880 Daniele Ceccarelli 881 Ericsson 882 Via A. Negrone 1/A 883 Genova - Sestri Ponente 884 Italy 885 Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com 887 Khuzema Pithewan 888 Infinera Corporation 889 169, Java Drive 890 Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA 891 Email: kpithewan@infinera.com 893 Yi Lin 894 Huawei Technologies 895 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 896 Bantian, Longgang District 897 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 898 Phone: +86-755-28972914 899 Email: yi.lin@huawei.com 901 Yunbin Xu 902 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 903 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 904 Phone: +86-10-68094134 905 Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn 907 Pietro Grandi 908 Alcatel-Lucent 909 Optics CTO 910 Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy 911 +39 039 6864930 912 Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it 914 Diego Caviglia 915 Ericsson 916 Via A. Negrone 1/A 917 Genova - Sestri Ponente 918 Italy 919 Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com 920 Rajan Rao 921 Infinera Corporation 922 169, Java Drive 923 Sunnyvale, CA-94089 924 USA 925 Email: rrao@infinera.com 927 John E Drake 928 Juniper 929 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 931 Igor Bryskin 932 Adva Optical 933 EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com 935 12. Acknowledgment 937 The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for 938 their useful comments to the document. 940 Intellectual Property 942 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 943 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 944 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 945 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 946 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 947 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 948 such rights. 950 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 951 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 952 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 953 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 954 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR 955 repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 956 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 957 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 958 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 959 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 960 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 962 The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or 963 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are 964 published by third parties, including those that are translated into 965 other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions 966 of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions 967 is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of 968 these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including 969 those that are translated into other languages, should not be 970 considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. 972 For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards 973 Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of 974 the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the 975 provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 976 conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the 977 rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and 978 shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such 979 Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 981 Disclaimer of Validity 983 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided 984 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 985 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 986 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 987 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 988 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 989 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 990 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 992 Copyright Notice 994 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 995 document authors. All rights reserved. 997 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 998 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 999 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 1000 publication of this document. Please review these documents 1001 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 1002 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 1003 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 1004 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 1005 described in the Simplified BSD License.