idnits 2.17.1 draft-vijay-ccamp-ospf-otn-timeslot-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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 383 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (August 16, 2019) is 1716 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3630' is defined on line 293, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 302, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Vijayanand Chandrasekar 2 INTERNET DRAFT Individual Contributor 3 Intended Status: Standards Track August 16, 2019 4 Expires: 15 Febraury, 2020 6 Advertising OTN Fixed Time slot constraints in OSPF 7 draft-vijay-ccamp-ospf-otn-timeslot-00.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 12 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 16 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 17 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2020. 26 Copyright Notice 28 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 29 document authors. All rights reserved. 31 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 32 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 33 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 34 publication of this document. Please review these documents 35 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 36 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 37 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 38 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 39 described in the Simplified BSD License. 41 Abstract 42 This document describes the extensions needed to OSPF for 43 advertising the constraints that exists in some OTN switches while 44 switching timeslots between ports. This advertisement would be 45 needed for computing path of LSP through these switches taking into 46 account the above mentioned constraint. 48 This document proposes extensions to existing OSPF for advertising 49 the timeslots available on each OTN port in a new sub-tlv and the 50 connectivity matrix representing the capability of the device to 51 cross connect these timeslots in another new sub-tlv 53 1. Introduction 55 In [RFC7138], a mechanism for advertising the ODU multiplexing 56 hierarchy is described. In [RFC7580], an optical node property TLV 57 is defined as an extension to the OSPF opaque LSA defined in 58 {RFC3630]. 59 . 61 This document describes the use of OSPF-TE in carrying 62 information about the details of OTN time slots available in each 63 port of an OTN switch and the connectivity matrix describing the 64 connectivity between the timeslots of the different ports. 66 2. Terminology 68 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 69 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 70 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2110]. 72 The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in 73 RFC7138[RFC7138],RFC5780[RFC7580] and RFC3630{RFC3630] 75 3. OSPF Extensions 77 A new OTN timeslot sub-TLV and OTN Connectivity matrix sub-TLV 78 are proposed in this document. The OTN timeslot sub-TLV will be used 79 in conjunction with the SCSI described in section 4.1 of 80 RFC7138[RFC7138]. The OTN connectivity matrix will be carried in the 81 Optical node property TLV described in RFC7580[RFC7580] 83 3.1 OTN Timeslot sub-TLV 85 0 1 2 3 86 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 87 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 88 | Type {TBD) | Length | 89 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 2 ] 90 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 91 |Pri | Bitmap Length | G | BitMap(variable length) | 92 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 93 | BitMap(variable length) | 94 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 95 |Pri | Bitmap Length | G| BitMap(variable length) | 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 97 | BitMap(variable length) | 98 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| 99 | | 100 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 102 Type 104 TBD 106 Length 108 Length of Sub-TLV 110 Pri 112 Priority level (0-7) at which the bitmap is advertised 114 G: Timeslot granularity 115 0 - 1.25 Gbps 116 1 - 2.5 Gbps 117 2 - 5 Gbps 119 Priority (0-7) at which the bitmap is available 121 Bitmap Length 123 Length in bits of the bitmap following this 125 BitMap 127 The bitmap represents the timeslots available which is 128 advertised through this sub-TLB. A 1 in the bit position represents 129 that the timeslot is available , while a 0 represents that the 130 timeslot is not available.The Bitmap is padded to the nearest byte 131 boundary. 133 3.2 Connectivity matrix sub-TLV 135 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 3 ] 136 The Connectivity matrix TLV is described below. 138 0 1 2 3 139 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 1 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 | Type( TBD) | Length | 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | Number of Link pairs | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 | Link Identifier | 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 147 | Link Identifier | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 | Number of Bitmap pair pairs | 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 |Bit Map Length | G | TimeSlot BitMap | 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 | BitMap(contd) | 154 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 |Bit Map Length |G | TimeSlot BitMap | 156 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 157 | BitMap(contd) | 158 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 . 161 . 162 . 163 . 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 | Link Identifier | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Link Identifier | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Number of Bitmap pair pairs | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 |Bit Map Length |G | TimeSlot BitMap | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | BitMap(contd) | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 |Bit Map Length |G | TimeSlot BitMap | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | BitMap(contd) | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 Type 182 TBD 184 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 4 ] 185 Length 187 Length of Sub-TLV 189 Number of Link pairs 191 The number of pair of link identifiers advertised. 193 Link Identifier 195 An identifier for the port that is described 197 Number of Bitmap pairs 199 The number of pair of bitmaps advertised. 201 Bit Map Length 203 Length in bits of the bitmap 205 G 207 Timeslot granularity 208 0:1.25 Gbps 209 1:2.5 Gbps 210 2:5 Gbps 212 Timeslot BitmAp 214 The BitMap representing the timeslots 216 4. Operational overview 218 This section details the operation of the scheme proposed in 219 this document. 221 On some OTN switches there exists constraints on which OTN 222 timeslots can be cross connected to which other OTN timeslots. 223 Therefore, the node computing the path through such switches needs 224 to be aware of the OTN timeslots which are available and to which 225 other timeslots they can be cross connected. 227 The OTN timeslot sub-TLV is advertised along with the SCSI 228 defined in section 4.1 of RFC7138[RFC7138] as a separate sub-tlv of 229 the link tlv. The SCSI in RFC7138[RFC7138] only advertises the 230 number of timeslots available whereas this sub-TLV defines the exact 231 timeslots which are available in the form a bitmap. 232 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 5 ] 233 The connectivity matrix sub-TLV is advertised in the node 234 attribute TLV of the opaque LSA defined in RFC3630[RFC3630} in line 235 with the connectivity matrix that is advertised in [RFC7580]. This 236 advertisement describes exactly which timeslots of an OTN interface 237 can be cross connected to which other timeslots of another OTN 238 Interface. For every pair of link identifiers, multiple pairs of 239 bitmaps are advertised, this denotes that timeslots, of the first 240 interface in the interface identifier pair, identified in the first 241 bitmap of the bitmap pair can be cross connected to timeslots, of 242 the second interface in the interface identifier pair, identified in 243 the second bitmap of the bitmap pair. Like this several interface 244 pairs and their corresponding bitmap pairs can be advertised. 245 For example, if on Interface I1 timeslots (t1,t3,t5) can be cross- 246 connected to timeslots ( t2,t4,t6) on Interface I2 and ( t2,t4,t6)on 247 Interface I1 can be cross-connected to (t1,t3,t5) on Interface I2, 248 then there will be one interface Identifier pair (I1,I2) advertised 249 with two bitmap pairs corresponding to (t1,t3,t5), (t2,t4,t6) and ( 250 t2,t4,t6), ( t1,t3,t5) 252 The above mentioned sub-TLVs together would help the node which 253 is computing the path to determine which timeslot to select on each 254 of the OTN ports to route the LSP on OTN switches which have 255 restriction on cross connecting OTN timeslots. 257 5. Interoperability Considerations 259 The feature described in this document would be operational only 260 if all the OSPF routers in area support the extension described 261 above. 263 6. Security considerations 265 None 267 7. IANA Considerations 269 IANA needs to allocate a new Type for the OTN timeslot sub-TLV 270 described in section 3.1 and a new Type for the connectivity matrix 271 sub-TLV described in section 3.2 273 8. Authors' Address 275 Vijayanand Chandrasekar 276 Individual Contributor 278 Email: vijayanandc159@outlook.com 280 9. References 281 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 6 ] 283 9.1 Normative References 285 [RFC7138], D. Ceccarelli, F. Zhang, S. Belotti, R. Rao and J. Drake, 286 " Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS Control of 287 Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks ",RFC7138,March 2014. 289 [RFC7580], F. Zhang, Y. Lee, J.Han, G. Bernstein and Y. Xu, " OSPF- 290 TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints 291 ",RFC7580, June 2015. 293 [RFC3630], D. Katz, K. Kompella and D. Yeung, " Traffic Engineering 294 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003 295 . 297 9.2 Informative references 299 [RFC2110] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 300 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 302 [RFC5226] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 303 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226. 305 Vijayanand C Expires February 2020 [page 7 ]