idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 10 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 exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'NOT REQUIRED' is not defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly determine the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal type and the tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to 1 in the Bit Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary slots. The node MUST also assign a valid TPN, which MUST not collide with other TPN value used by existing LO ODU connections in the selected HO ODU link, and configure the expected multiplex structure identifier (ExMSI) using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN MUST be filled into the label. == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST not be included, so Length field MUST be set to 0 as well. -- The document date (August 27, 2012) is 4259 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: 'G709-v1' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4606' is mentioned on line 481, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'OTN-INFO' is defined on line 887, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G709-V2' is defined on line 908, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G798-V2' is defined on line 911, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G798-V3' is defined on line 915, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework (ref. 'OTN-FWK') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model (ref. 'OTN-INFO') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G709-V3' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G709-V3-A2' 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: February 27, 2013 August 27, 2012 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-g709v3-04.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 February 27, 2013. 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. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 5 72 5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 7 73 5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters ................. 8 74 5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................ 10 75 6. Generalized Label ............................................ 11 76 6.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label ................. 11 77 6.2. Examples ................................................ 14 78 6.3. Label Distribution Procedure ............................ 15 79 6.3.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 16 80 6.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 17 81 7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) ............... 17 82 8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations........... 18 83 9. Security Considerations ...................................... 19 84 10. IANA Considerations.......................................... 19 85 11. References .................................................. 20 86 11.1. Normative References ................................... 20 87 11.2. Informative References ................................. 21 89 12. Contributors ................................................ 21 90 13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 22 91 14. Acknowledgment .............................................. 24 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 (GFP) (HAO), which is 119 defined in [G.7044]. 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 Granularity (TSG) (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-FWK]. 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. Generalized Label Request 187 The Generalized Label Request, as described in [RFC3471], carries the 188 LSP Encoding Type, the Switching Type and the Generalized Protocol 189 Identifier (G-PID). 191 [RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new 192 code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) 193 and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in order 194 to accommodate [G709-v1]. 196 This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is 197 introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-V3] in 198 order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described 199 in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (101, TBA by IANA) is defined in 200 [OTN-OSPF]. 202 This document also updates the G-PID values defined in [RFC4328]: 204 Value G-PID Type 206 ----- ---------- 208 47 ODU-2.5G: transport of Digital Paths at 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps 209 via 2.5Gbps TSG 211 49 CBRa: asynchronous Constant Bit Rate (i.e., mapping of 212 CBR2G5, CBR10G and CBR40G) 214 50 CBRb: bit synchronous Constant Bit Rate (i.e., mapping of 215 CBR2G5, CBR10G, CBR40G, CBR10G3 and supra-2.488 CBR 216 Gbit/s signal (carried by OPUflex)) 218 32 ATM: mapping at 1.25, 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps 220 51 BSOT: non-specific client Bit Stream with Octet Timing (i.e., 221 Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 Gbps Bit Stream) 223 52 BSNT: non-specific client Bit Stream without Octet Timing 224 (i.e., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 Gbps Bit 225 Stream) 227 Note: Values 32, 47, 49 and 50 include mapping of SDH. 229 In the case of ODU multiplexing, the LO ODU (i.e., the client signal) 230 may be multiplexed into HO ODU via 1.25G TSG, 2.5G TSG or any one of 231 them (i.e., TSG Auto_Negotiation is enabled). Since the G-PID type 232 "ODUk" defined in [RFC4328] is only used for 2.5Gbps TSG, two new G- 233 PID types are defined as follows: 235 - ODU-1.25G: transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 236 100 Gbps via 1.25Gbps TSG 238 - ODU-any: transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 239 Gbps via 1.25 or 2.5Gbps TSG (i.e., the fallback 240 procedure is enabled and the default value of 1.25Gbps 241 TSG can be fallen back to 2.5Gbps if needed) 243 In addition, some other new G-PID types are defined to support other 244 new client signals described in [G709-V3]: 246 - CBRc: Mapping of constant bit-rate signals with justification 247 into OPUk (k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) via GMP (i.e., mapping of 248 sub-1.238, supra-1.238 to sub-2.488, close-to 9.995, 249 close-to 40.149 and close-to 104.134 Gbit/s CBR client 250 signal) 252 - 1000BASE-X: Mapping of a 1000BASE-X signal via timing 253 transparent transcoding into OPU0 255 - FC-1200: Mapping of a FC-1200 signal via timing transparent 256 transcoding into OPU2e 258 The following table summarizes the new G-PID values with respect to 259 the LSP Encoding Type: 261 Value G-PID Type LSP Encoding Type 262 ----- ---------- ----------------- 263 59(TBA) G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk 264 60(TBA) G.709 ODU-any G.709 ODUk 265 61(TBA) CBRc G.709 ODUk 266 62(TBA) 1000BASE-X G.709 ODUk (k=0) 267 63(TBA) FC-1200 G.709 ODUk (k=2e) 269 Note: Values 59 and 60 include mapping of SDH. 271 5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 273 The traffic parameters for G.709 are defined as follows: 275 0 1 2 3 276 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 1 277 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 278 | Signal Type | Reserved | NMC/ Tolerance | 279 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 280 | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | 281 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 | Bit_Rate | 283 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 285 The Signal Type MUST be extended in order to cover the new Signal 286 Type introduced by the evolving OTN. The new Signal Type values are 287 extended as follows: 289 Value Type 290 ----- ---- 291 0 Not significant 292 1 ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps) 293 2 ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps) 294 3 ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps) 295 4 ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps) 296 5 Reserved (for future use) 297 6 OCh at 2.5 Gbps 298 7 OCh at 10 Gbps 299 8 OCh at 40 Gbps 300 9 OCh at 100 Gbps 301 10 ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) 302 11 ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 and GE LAN) 303 12~19 Reserved (for future use) 304 20 ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 305 21 ODUflex(GFP-F), resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 306 22 ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 307 23~255 Reserved (for future use) 309 NMC/Tolerance: 311 This field is redefined from the original definition in [RFC4328]. 312 NMC field defined in [RFC4328] cannot be fixed value for an end-to- 313 end circuit involving dissimilar OTN link types. For example, ODU2e 314 requires 9 TS on ODU3 and 8 TS on ODU4. Usage of NMC field is 315 deprecated and SHOULD be used only with [RFC4328] generalized label 316 format for backwards compatibility reasons. For the new generalized 317 label format as defined in this document this field MUST be 318 interpreted as Tolerance. 320 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields MUST be 321 used together to represent the actual bandwidth of ODUflex, where: 323 - The Bit_Rate field indicates the nominal bit rate of ODUflex(CBR) 324 expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single- 325 precision floating-point number (referring to [RFC4506] and 326 [IEEE]). The value contained in the Bit Rate field has to keep 327 into account both 239/238 factor and the Transcoding factor. 329 - The Tolerance field indicates the bit rate tolerance (part per 330 million, ppm) of the ODUflex(CBR) encoded as an unsigned integer, 331 which is bounded in 0~100ppm. 333 For example, for an ODUflex(CBR) service with Bit_Rate = 2.5Gbps and 334 Tolerance = 100ppm, the actual bandwidth of the ODUflex is: 336 2.5Gbps * (1 +/- 100ppm) 338 In case of ODUflex(GFP), the Bit_Rate field is used to indicate the 339 nominal bit rate of the ODUflex(GFP), which implies the number of 340 tributary slots requested for the ODUflex(GFP). Since the tolerance 341 of ODUflex(GFP) makes no sense on tributary slot resource reservation, 342 the Tolerance field for ODUflex(GFP) is not necessary and MUST be 343 filled with 0. 345 In case of other ODUk signal types, the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields 346 are not necessary and MUST be set to 0. 348 The usage of the NVC and Multiplier (MT) fields are the same as 349 [RFC4328]. 351 5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters 353 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in 354 the ODUflex traffic parameters MUST be used to determine the total 355 number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here: 357 N = Ceiling of 359 ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance) 360 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 361 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 363 In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of 364 the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate 365 after applying the 239/238 factor (according to clause 7.3 table 7.2 366 of [G709-V3]) and the transcoding factor T (if needed) on the CBR 367 client. According to clauses 17.7.3, 17.7.4 and 17.7.5 of [G709-V3]: 369 ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate = CBR client bit rate * (239/238) / T 371 The ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate is the nominal bit rate of the 372 tributary slot of ODUk, as shown in Table 1 (referring to [G709-V3]). 374 Table 1 - Actual TS bit rate of ODUk (in Gbps) 376 ODUk.ts Minimum Nominal Maximum 377 ---------------------------------------------------------- 378 ODU2.ts 1.249 384 632 1.249 409 620 1.249 434 608 379 ODU3.ts 1.254 678 635 1.254 703 729 1.254 728 823 380 ODU4.ts 1.301 683 217 1.301 709 251 1.301 735 285 382 Note that: 384 Minimum bit rate of ODUTk.ts = 385 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 387 Maximum bit rate of ODTUk.ts = 388 ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 + HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 390 Where: HO OPUk bit rate tolerance = 20ppm 392 Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR) 393 nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of 394 tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex 395 service. 397 Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots 398 are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be 399 reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) MAY not be the same on different HO 400 ODUk links. 402 An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR) 403 traffic parameters. 405 As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service 406 requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C. 407 In other words, the ODUflex traffic parameters indicate that Signal 408 Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is 409 100ppm. 411 +-----+ +---------+ +-----+ 412 | +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | 413 | +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+ | 414 | +=============+/| flex+-+=============+ | 415 | +-------------+ | |\+=============+ | 416 | +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | 417 | | | | | | 418 | | ....... | | ....... | | 419 | A +-------------+ B +-------------+ C | 420 +-----+ HO ODU4 +---------+ HO ODU2 +-----+ 422 =========: TS occupied by ODUflex 423 ---------: free TS 425 Figure 1 - Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters 427 - On the HO ODU4 link between node A and B: 429 The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex(CBR) equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 430 100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU4 431 equals 1.301 683 217Gbps, so the total number of tributary slots 432 N1 to be reserved on this link is: 434 N1 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1.301 683 217Gbps) = 2 436 - On the HO ODU2 link between node B and C: 438 The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm), 439 and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU2 equals 440 1.249 384 632Gbps, so the total number of tributary slots N2 to 441 be reserved on this link is: 443 N2 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1.249 384 632Gbps) = 3 445 5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters 447 [G709-V3-A2] recommends that the ODUflex(GFP) will fill an integral 448 number of tributary slots of the smallest HO ODUk path over which the 449 ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2. 451 Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance 453 ODU type | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance 454 --------------------------------+------------------+----------- 455 ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8 | n * ODU2.ts | +/-100 ppm 456 ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32 | n * ODU3.ts | +/-100 ppm 457 ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 | n * ODU4.ts | +/-100 ppm 459 According to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST 460 equal to one of the 80 values listed below: 462 1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts; 463 9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts; 464 33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts. 466 In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the 467 ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from 468 the Bit_Rate field. 470 6. Generalized Label 472 [RFC3471] has defined the Generalized Label which extends the 473 traditional label by allowing the representation of not only labels 474 which are sent in-band with associated data packets, but also labels 475 which identify time-slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed 476 positions. The format of the corresponding RSVP-TE Generalized Label 477 object is defined in the Section 2.3 of [RFC3473]. 479 However, for different technologies, it usually needs to use specific 480 label rather than the Generalized Label. For example, the label 481 format described in [RFC4606] could be used for SDH/SONET, the label 482 format in [RFC4328] for G.709. 484 6.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label 486 In order to be compatible with new types of ODU signal and new types 487 of tributary slot, the following new ODU label format MUST be used: 489 0 1 2 3 490 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 1 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 492 | TPN | Reserved | Length | 493 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 494 ~ Bit Map ......... ~ 495 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 496 The ODU Generalized Label is used to indicate how the LO ODUj signal 497 is multiplexed into the HO ODUk link. Note that the LO OUDj signal 498 type is indicated by traffic parameters, while the type of HO ODUk 499 link can be figured out locally according to the identifier of the 500 selected interface carried in the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. 502 TPN (12 bits): indicates the Tributary Port Number (TPN) for the 503 assigned Tributary Slot(s). 505 - In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, only the 506 lower 6 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of 507 TPN MUST be set to 0. 509 - In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU4, only the lower 7 510 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of TPN 511 MUST be set to 0. 513 - In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed 514 and this field MUST be set to 0. 516 As per [G709-V3], The TPN is used to allow for correct demultiplexing 517 in the data plane. When an LO ODUj is multiplexed into HO ODUk 518 occupying one or more TSs, a new TPN value is configured at the two 519 ends of the HO ODUk link and is put into the related MSI byte(s) in 520 the OPUk overhead at the (traffic) ingress end of the link, so that 521 the other end of the link can learn which TS(s) is/are used by the LO 522 ODUj in the data plane. 524 According to [G709-V3], the TPN field MUST be set as according to the 525 following tables: 527 Table 3 - TPN Assignment Rules (2.5Gbps TS granularity) 528 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 529 |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules | 530 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 531 | ODU2 | ODU1 |1~4 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 | 532 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 533 | | ODU1 |1~16|Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 | 534 | ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 535 | | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs | 536 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 537 Table 4 - TPN Assignment Rules (1.25Gbps TS granularity) 538 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 539 |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules | 540 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 541 | ODU1 | ODU0 |1~2 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU0 | 542 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 543 | | ODU1 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs | 544 | ODU2 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 545 | |ODU0 & |1~8 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and | 546 | |ODUflex| |ODUflexes' TPNs | 547 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 548 | | ODU1 |1~16|Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs | 549 | +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 550 | | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs | 551 | ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 552 | |ODU0 & | |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and | 553 | |ODU2e &|1~32|ODU2es and ODUflexes' TPNs | 554 | |ODUflex| | | 555 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 556 | ODU4 |Any ODU|1~80|Flexible, != ANY other existing LO ODUs' TPNs | 557 +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 559 Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN MAY not be 560 corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-V3]. 562 Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bit of the Bit Map field, 563 i.e., the total number of TS in the HO ODUk link. 565 In case of an ODUk mapped into OTUk, there is no need to indicate 566 which tributary slots will be used, so the length field MUST be set 567 to 0. 569 Bit Map (variable): indicates which tributary slots in HO ODUk that 570 the LO ODUj will be multiplexed into. The sequence of the Bit Map is 571 consistent with the sequence of the tributary slots in HO ODUk. Each 572 bit in the bit map represents the corresponding tributary slot in HO 573 ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot 574 will be used by LO ODUj or not. 576 Padded bits are added behind the Bit Map to make the whole label a 577 multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padded bit MUST be set to 0 and 578 MUST be ignored. 580 Note that the Length field in the label format MAY also be used to 581 indicate the TS type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps 582 or 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP 583 Object. In some cases when there is no LMP (Link Management Protocol) 584 or routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG, 585 the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the label 586 format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the length filed 587 will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or 588 1.25Gbps, respectively. 590 6.2. Examples 592 The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label 593 format described in the previous sections of this document. 595 (1) ODUk into OTUk mapping: 597 In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label 598 indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the 599 corresponding OTUk. The following example label indicates an ODU1 600 mapped into OTU1. 602 0 1 2 3 603 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 1 604 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 605 | TPN = 0 | Reserved | Length = 0 | 606 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 608 (2) ODUj into ODUk multiplexing: 610 In such conditions, this label indicates that an ODUj is multiplexed 611 into several tributary slots of OPUk and then mapped into OTUk. Some 612 instances are shown as follow: 614 - ODU0 into ODU2 Multiplexing: 616 0 1 2 3 617 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 1 618 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 619 | TPN = 2 | Reserved | Length = 8 | 620 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 621 |0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 622 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 624 This above label indicates an ODU0 multiplexed into the second 625 tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 626 type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 2. 628 - ODU1 into ODU2 Multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity: 630 0 1 2 3 631 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 1 632 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 633 | TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 8 | 634 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 635 |0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 636 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 638 This above label indicates an ODU1 multiplexed into the 2nd and the 639 4th tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 640 type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 1. 642 - ODU2 into ODU3 Multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity: 644 0 1 2 3 645 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 1 646 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 647 | TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 16 | 648 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 649 |0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padded Bits (0) | 650 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 652 This above label indicates an ODU2 multiplexed into the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 653 and 7th tributary slot of ODU3, wherein there are 16 TS in ODU3 (i.e., 654 the type of the tributary slot is 2.5Gbps), and the TPN value is 1. 656 6.3. Label Distribution Procedure 658 This document does not change the existing label distribution 659 procedures [RFC4328] for GMPLS except that the new ODUk label MUST be 660 processed as follows. 662 When a node receives a generalized label request for setting up an 663 ODUj LSP from its upstream neighbor node, the node MUST generate an 664 ODU label according to the signal type of the requested LSP and the 665 free resources (i.e., free tributary slots of ODUk) that will be 666 reserved for the LSP, and send the label to its upstream neighbor 667 node. 669 In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly determine 670 the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal type and the 671 tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to 1 in the Bit 672 Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary slots. The node 673 MUST also assign a valid TPN, which MUST not collide with other TPN 674 value used by existing LO ODU connections in the selected HO ODU link, 675 and configure the expected multiplex structure identifier (ExMSI) 676 using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN MUST be filled into the label. 678 In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit Map 679 information is not REQUIRED and MUST not be included, so Length field 680 MUST be set to 0 as well. 682 In order to process a received ODU label, the node MUST firstly learn 683 which ODU signal type is multiplexed or mapped into which ODU signal 684 type accordingly to the traffic parameters and the IF_ID RSVP_HOP 685 Object in the received message. 687 In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST retrieve the 688 reserved tributary slots in the ODUk by its downstream neighbor node 689 according to the position of the bits that are set to 1 in the Bit 690 Map field. The node determines the TS type (according to the total TS 691 number of the ODUk, or pre-configured TS type), so that the node, 692 based on the TS type, can multiplex the ODUj into the ODUk. The node 693 MUST also retrieve the TPN value assigned by its downstream neighbor 694 node from the label, and fill the TPN into the related MSI byte(s) in 695 the OPUk overhead in the data plane, so that the downstream neighbor 696 node can check whether the TPN received from the data plane is 697 consistent with the ExMSI and determine whether there is any mismatch 698 defect. 700 In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the size of Bit Map field MUST be 0 701 and no additional procedure is needed. 703 Note that the procedures of other label related objects (e.g., 704 Upstream Label, Label Set) are similar to the one described above. 706 Note also that the TPN in the label_ERO MAY not be assigned (i.e., 707 TPN field = 0) if the TPN is requested to be assigned locally. 709 6.3.1. Notification on Label Error 711 When receiving an ODUk label from the neighbor node, the node SHOULD 712 check the integrity of the label. An error message containing an 713 "Unacceptable label value" indication ([RFC3209]) SHOULD be sent if 714 one of the following cases occurs: 716 - Invalid value in the length field. 718 - The selected link only supports 2.5Gbps TS granularity while the 719 Length field in the label along with ODUk signal type indicates 720 the 1.25Gbps TS granularity; 722 - The label includes an invalid TPN value that breaks the TPN 723 assignment rules; 725 - The reserved resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map 726 field) do not match with the Traffic Parameters. 728 6.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication 730 As per [RFC6344], the VCGs can be created using Co-Signaled style or 731 Multiple LSPs style. 733 In case of Co-Signaled style, the explicit ordered list of all labels 734 reflects the order of VCG members, which is similar to [RFC4328]. In 735 case of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (NVC > 1), the 736 first label indicates the components of the first virtually 737 concatenated signal; the second label indicates the components of the 738 second virtually concatenated signal; and so on. In case of 739 multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT > 1), 740 the first label indicates the components of the first multiplexed 741 virtually concatenated signal; the second label indicates components 742 of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; and so on. 744 In case of Multiple LSPs style, multiple control plane LSPs are 745 created with a single VCG and the VCAT Call can be used to associate 746 the control plane LSPs. The procedures are similar to section 6 of 747 [RFC6344]. 749 7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) 751 [G.7044] describes the procedure of ODUflex (GFP) hitless resizing 752 using LCR (Link Connection Resize) and BWR (Bandwidth Resize) 753 protocols in OTN data plane. 755 For the control plane, signaling messages are REQUIRED to initiate 756 the adjustment procedure. Section 2.5 and Section 4.6.4 of [RFC3209] 757 describe how the Share Explicit (SE) style is used in TE network for 758 bandwidth increasing and decreasing, which SHOULD be still applicable 759 for triggering the ODUflex (GFP) adjustment procedure in data plane. 761 Note that the SE style SHOULD be used at the beginning when creating 762 a resizable ODUflex connection (Signal Type = 21). Otherwise an error 763 with Error Code "Conflicting reservation style" SHOULD be generated 764 when performing bandwidth adjustment. 766 - Bandwidth increasing 768 In order to increase the bandwidth of an ODUflex (GFP) connection, 769 a Path message with SE style (keeping Tunnel ID unchanged and 770 assigning a new LSP ID) is sent along the path. 772 A downstream node compares the old Traffic Parameters (stored 773 locally) with the new one carried in the Path message, to 774 determine the number of TS to be added. After choosing and 775 reserving new free TS, the downstream node sends back a Resv 776 message carrying both the old and new LABEL Objects in the SE 777 flow descriptor, so that its upstream neighbor can determine 778 which TS are added. And the LCR protocol between each pair of 779 neighbor nodes is triggered. 781 On the source node, the BWR protocol will be triggered by the 782 successful completion of LCR protocols on every hop after Resv 783 message is processed. On success of BWR, the source node SHOULD 784 send a PathTear message to delete the old control state (i.e., 785 the control state of the ODUflex (GFP) before resizing) on the 786 control plane. 788 - Bandwidth decreasing 790 The SE style SHOULD also be used for ODUflex bandwidth decreasing. 791 For each pair of neighbor nodes, the sending and receiving Resv 792 message with old and new LABEL Objects will trigger the first 793 step of LCR between them to perform LCR handshake. On the source 794 node, the BWR protocol will be triggered by the successful 795 completion of LCR handshake on every hop after Resv message is 796 processed. On success of BWR, the second step of LCR, i.e., link 797 connection decrease procedure will be started on every hop of the 798 connection. 800 Similarly, after completion of bandwidth decreasing, a ResvErr 801 message SHOULD be sent to tear down the old control state. 803 8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations 805 As described in [OTN-FWK], since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in 806 the network for the nodes that support [G709-V1], control plane 807 backward compatibility SHOULD be taken into consideration. More 808 specifically: 810 o Nodes supporting this document SHOULD support [OTN-OSPF]. 812 o Nodes supporting this document MAY support [RFC4328] signaling. 814 o A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and 815 this document) is NOT REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both 816 procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator. 818 o Ingress nodes that support both sets of procedures MAY select 819 which set of procedures to follow based on routing information or 820 local policy. 822 o Per [RFC3473], nodes that do not support this document will 823 generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Switching 824 Type" indication. 826 9. Security Considerations 828 This document introduces no new security considerations to the 829 existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473], further 830 details of the specific security measures are provided. Additionally, 831 [GMPLS-SEC] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and 832 protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. 834 10. IANA Considerations 836 - G.709 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects: 838 The traffic parameters, which are carried in the G.709 839 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects, do not require any new object 840 class and type based on [RFC4328]: 842 o G.709 SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] 844 o G.709 FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] 846 - Generalized Label Object: 848 The new defined ODU label (Section 6) is a kind of generalized 849 label. Therefore, the Class-Num and C-Type of the ODU label is 850 the same as that of generalized label described in [RFC3473], 851 i.e., Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2. 853 11. References 855 11.1. Normative References 857 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 858 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 860 [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 861 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical 862 Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006. 864 [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 865 Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001. 867 [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 868 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 869 3471, January 2003. 871 [RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 872 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 873 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 875 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 876 (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 878 [RFC6344] G. Bernstein et al, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) 879 and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with 880 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", 881 RFC6344, August 2011. 883 [OTN-FWK] Fatai Zhang et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of 884 G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- 885 g709-framework, Work in Progress, August 2012. 887 [OTN-INFO] S. Belotti et al, "Information model for G.709 Optical 888 Transport Networks (OTN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info- 889 model, Work in Progress, July 2012. 891 [OTN-OSPF] D. Ceccarelli et al, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to 892 OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 893 OTN Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3, Work in 894 Progress, April 2012. 896 [G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN) 897 ", G.709/Y.1331, December 2009. 899 [G709-V3-A2] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network 900 (OTN) Amendment 2", G.709/y.1331 Amendment 2, April 2011. 902 11.2. Informative References 904 [G709-V1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," 905 G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001 906 (November 2001). 908 [G709-V2] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," 909 G.709 Recommendation, March 2003. 911 [G798-V2] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network 912 hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798, December 913 2006. 915 [G798-V3] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network 916 hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798v3, consented 917 June 2010. 919 [G.7044] ITU-T, "Hitless adjustment of ODUflex", G.7044 (and 920 Amendment 1), February 2012. 922 [RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation 923 Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006. 925 [IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", 926 ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and 927 Electronics Engineers, August 1985. 929 [GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 930 Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009. 932 12. Contributors 934 Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs 935 Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com 937 Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent 938 Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com 939 Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies 940 Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com 942 Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson 943 Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com 945 Lyndon Ong, Ciena 946 Email: lyong@ciena.com 948 Biao Lu, infinera 949 Email: blu@infinera.com 951 13. Authors' Addresses 953 Fatai Zhang (editor) 954 Huawei Technologies 955 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 956 Bantian, Longgang District 957 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 958 Phone: +86-755-28972912 959 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 961 Guoying Zhang 962 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 963 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 964 Phone: +86-10-68094272 965 Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn 967 Sergio Belotti 968 Alcatel-Lucent 969 Optics CTO 970 Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy 971 +39 039 6863033 972 Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it 973 Daniele Ceccarelli 974 Ericsson 975 Via A. Negrone 1/A 976 Genova - Sestri Ponente 977 Italy 978 Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com 980 Khuzema Pithewan 981 Infinera Corporation 982 169, Java Drive 983 Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA 984 Email: kpithewan@infinera.com 986 Yi Lin 987 Huawei Technologies 988 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 989 Bantian, Longgang District 990 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 991 Phone: +86-755-28972914 992 Email: yi.lin@huawei.com 994 Yunbin Xu 995 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 996 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 997 Phone: +86-10-68094134 998 Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn 1000 Pietro Grandi 1001 Alcatel-Lucent 1002 Optics CTO 1003 Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy 1004 +39 039 6864930 1005 Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it 1006 Diego Caviglia 1007 Ericsson 1008 Via A. Negrone 1/A 1009 Genova - Sestri Ponente 1010 Italy 1011 Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com 1013 Rajan Rao 1014 Infinera Corporation 1015 169, Java Drive 1016 Sunnyvale, CA-94089 1017 USA 1018 Email: rrao@infinera.com 1020 John E Drake 1021 Juniper 1022 Email: jdrake@juniper.net 1024 Igor Bryskin 1025 Adva Optical 1026 EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com 1028 14. Acknowledgment 1030 The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for 1031 their useful comments to the document. 1033 Intellectual Property 1035 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 1036 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 1037 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 1038 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 1039 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 1040 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 1041 such rights. 1043 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 1044 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 1045 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 1046 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 1047 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR 1048 repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 1050 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1051 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1052 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1053 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 1054 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 1056 The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or 1057 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are 1058 published by third parties, including those that are translated into 1059 other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions 1060 of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions 1061 is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of 1062 these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including 1063 those that are translated into other languages, should not be 1064 considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. 1066 For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards 1067 Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of 1068 the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the 1069 provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 1070 conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the 1071 rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and 1072 shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such 1073 Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 1075 Disclaimer of Validity 1077 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided 1078 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 1079 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 1080 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 1081 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 1082 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 1083 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 1084 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1086 Copyright Notice 1088 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 1089 document authors. All rights reserved. 1091 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 1092 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 1093 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 1094 publication of this document. Please review these documents 1095 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 1096 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 1097 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 1098 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 1099 described in the Simplified BSD License.