idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 1. Introduction' ) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (February 28, 2011) is 4807 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: 'RWA-Encode' is mentioned on line 195, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3630' is mentioned on line 239, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4203' is mentioned on line 234, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 290, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G.694.1' is defined on line 298, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4202' is defined on line 301, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4203' is defined on line 305, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4328' is defined on line 309, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5307' is defined on line 313, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'OSPF-Node' is defined on line 317, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'Lambda-Labels' is defined on line 321, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G.694.1' -- No information found for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON-Framework - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'WSON-Frame' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info (ref. 'WSON-Info') Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Y. Lee 2 Internet Draft Huawei 3 Intended status: Standards Track G. Bernstein 4 Expires: August 2011 Grotto Networking 6 February 28, 2011 8 OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for 9 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks 11 draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-03.txt 13 Status of this Memo 15 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 16 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2011. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 42 2011 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Abstract 56 This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support 57 signal compatibility constraints associated with WSON network 58 elements. These routing enhancements are required in common optical 59 or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all of the optical 60 signals in the network are compatible with all network elements 61 participating in the network. 63 This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical 64 or hybrid electro optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators, 65 and wavelength converters since such systems can be limited to 66 processing only certain types of WSON signals. 68 Conventions used in this document 70 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 71 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 72 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction...................................................3 77 1.1. Revision History..........................................3 78 2. The Optical Node Property TLV..................................3 79 2.1. Sub-TLV Details...........................................4 80 2.1.1. Resource Block Information...........................4 81 2.1.2. Resource Block Accessibility.........................5 82 2.1.3. Resource Block Wavelength Constraints................5 83 2.1.4. Resource Block Pool State............................5 84 3. Security Considerations........................................6 85 4. IANA Considerations............................................6 86 5. References.....................................................8 87 5.1. Normative References......................................8 89 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 90 2011 92 6. Contributors...................................................9 93 Authors' Addresses................................................9 94 Intellectual Property Statement..................................10 95 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................10 97 1. Introduction 99 The documents [WSON-Frame, WSON-Info, RWA-Encode] explain how to 100 extend the wavelength switched optical network (WSON) control plane 101 to allow both multiple WSON signal types and common hybrid electro 102 optical systems as well hybrid systems containing optical switching 103 and electro-optical resources. In WSON, not all of the optical 104 signals in the network are compatible with all network elements 105 participating in the network. Therefore, signal compatibility is an 106 important constraint in path computation in a WSON. 108 This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support 109 signal compatibility constraints associated with general WSON network 110 elements. These routing enhancements are required in common optical 111 or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all of the optical 112 signals in the network are compatible with all network elements 113 participating in the network. 115 This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical 116 or hybrid electro optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators, 117 and wavelength converters since such systems can be limited to 118 processing only certain types of WSON signals. 120 1.1. Revision History 122 From 00 to 01: The details of the encodings for compatibility moved 123 from this document to [RWA_Encode]. 125 From 01 to 02: Editorial changes. 127 From 02 to 03: Add a new Top Level Node TLV, Optical Node Property 128 TLV to carry WSON specific node information. 130 2. The Optical Node Property TLV 132 [RFC 3630] defines OSPF TE LSA using an opaque LSA. This document 133 adds a new top level TLV for use in the OSPF TE LSA: the Optical Node 134 Property TLV. 136 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 137 2011 139 The Optical Node Property TLV contains all WSON-specific node 140 properties and signal compatibility constraints. The detailed 141 encodings of these properties are defined in [RWA-Encode]. 143 The following sub-TLVs of the Optical Node Property TLV are defined: 145 Value Length Sub-TLV Type 147 TBA variable Resource Block Information 148 TBA variable Resource Block Accessibility 149 TBA variable Resource Block Wavelength Constraints 150 TBA variable Resource Block Pool State 152 The detail encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in [RWA-Encode] as 153 indicated in the table below. 155 Sub-TLV Type Section[RWA-Encode] 157 Resource Block Information 5.1 158 Resource Block Accessibility 4.1 159 Resource Block Wavelength Constraints 4.2 160 Resource Block Pool State 4.3 162 2.1. Sub-TLV Details 164 Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub- 165 TLV is dynamic in nature while the rest are static. As such, it will 166 be separated out from the rest and make use of multiple TE LSA 167 instances per source, per [RFC3630] multiple instance capability. 169 2.1.1. Resource Block Information 171 Resource Block Information sub-TLVs are used to convey relatively 172 static information about individual resource blocks including the 173 resource block properties and the number of resources in a block. 175 There are seven nested sub-TLVs defined in the Resource Block 176 Information sub-TLV. 178 Value Length Sub-TLV Type 180 TBA variable Input Modulation Format List 181 TBA variable Input FEC Type List 182 TBA variable Input Bit Range List 184 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 185 2011 187 TBA variable Input Client Signal List 188 TBA variable Processing Capability List 189 TBA variable Output Modulation Format List 190 TBA variable Output FEC Type List 192 The detail encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in [RWA-Encode] as 193 indicated in the table below. 195 Name Section[RWA-Encode] 197 Input Modulation Format List 5.2 198 Input FEC Type List 5.3 199 Input Bit Range List 5.4 200 Input Client Signal List 5.5 201 Processing Capability List 5.6 202 Output Modulation Format List 5.7 203 Output FEC Type List 5.8 205 2.1.2. Resource Block Accessibility 207 This sub-TLV describes the structure of the resource pool in relation 208 to the switching device. In particular it indicates the ability of an 209 ingress port to reach a resource block and of a resource block to 210 reach a particular egress port. 212 2.1.3. Resource Block Wavelength Constraints 214 Resources, such as wavelength converters, etc., may have a limited 215 input or output wavelength ranges. Additionally, due to the structure 216 of the optical system not all wavelengths can necessarily reach or 217 leave all the resources. Resource Block Wavelength Constraints sub- 218 TLV describe these properties. 220 2.1.4. Resource Block Pool State 222 This sub-TLV describes the usage state of a resource that can be 223 encoded as either a list of 16 bit integer values or a bit map 224 indicating whether a single resource is available or in use. This 225 information can be relatively dynamic, i.e., can change when a 226 connection is established or torn down. 228 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 229 2011 231 3. Security Considerations 233 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 234 than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. 236 4. IANA Considerations 238 This document introduces a new Top Level Node TLV (Optical Node 239 Property TLV) under the OSPF TE LSA defined in [RFC 3630]. 241 Value TLV Type 243 TBA Optical Node Property 245 IANA is to allocate a new TLV Type and its Value for this Top Level 246 Node TLV. 248 This document also introduces the following sub-TLVs associated with 249 the Optical Node Property TLV as defined in Section 2.1 as follows: 251 Value Length Sub-TLV Type 253 TBA variable Resource Block Information 254 TBA variable Resource Block Accessibility 255 TBA variable Resource Block Wavelength Constraints 256 TBA variable Resource Block Pool State 258 IANA is to allocate new sub-TLV Types and their Values for these sub- 259 TLVs defined under the Optical Node Property TLV. 261 There are seven nested sub-TLVs defined in the Resource Block 262 Information sub-TLV as follows: 264 Value Length Sub-TLV Type 266 TBA variable Input Modulation Format List 267 TBA variable Input FEC Type List 268 TBA variable Input Bit Range List 269 TBA variable Input Client Signal List 270 TBA variable Processing Capability List 271 TBA variable Output Modulation Format List 272 TBA variable Output FEC Type List 274 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 275 2011 277 IANA is to allocate new Sub-TLV Types and their Values for these Sub- 278 TLVs defined under the Resource Block Information Sub-TLV. 280 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 281 2011 283 5. References 285 5.1. Normative References 287 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 288 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 290 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 291 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 292 January 2003. 294 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic 295 Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 296 3630, September 2003. 298 [G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM 299 applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002. 301 [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions 302 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 303 (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 305 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in 306 Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 307 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. 309 [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 310 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical 311 Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. 313 [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions 314 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 315 (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. 317 [OSPF-Node] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's 318 Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf- 319 te-node-addr, work in progress. 321 [Lambda-Labels] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, 322 "Generalized Labels for G.694 Lambda-Switching 323 Capable Label Switching Routers", draft-ietf-ccamp- 324 gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels, work in progress. 326 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 327 2011 329 [WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS 330 and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical 331 Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON-Framework, work in 332 progress. 334 [WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 335 Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength 336 Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info 337 work in progress. 339 [RWA-Encode]G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 340 Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for 341 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf- 342 ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, work in progress. 344 6. Authors and Contributors 346 Authors' Addresses 348 Young Lee (ed.) 349 Huawei Technologies 350 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 351 Plano, TX 75075 352 USA 354 Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) 355 Email: ylee@huawei.com 357 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 358 2011 360 Greg M. Bernstein (ed.) 361 Grotto Networking 362 Fremont California, USA 364 Phone: (510) 573-2237 365 Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com 367 Intellectual Property Statement 369 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 370 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 371 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 372 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 373 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 374 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 375 such rights. 377 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 378 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 379 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 380 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 381 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR 382 repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 384 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 385 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 386 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 387 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 388 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 390 Disclaimer of Validity 392 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided 393 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 394 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 395 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 396 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 397 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 398 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 399 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 401 Internet-Draft OSPF Enhancement for WSON Signal Compatibility February 402 2011 404 Acknowledgment 406 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 407 Internet Society.