idnits 2.17.1 draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-requirements-01.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 IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There is 1 instance 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 == Line 25 has weird spacing: '... months and ...' == Line 26 has weird spacing: '... at any time...' == Line 27 has weird spacing: '...ference mate...' == Line 641 has weird spacing: '... of these ...' == Line 642 has weird spacing: '...cluding thos...' == (3 more instances...) -- The document date (October 27, 2011) is 4557 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength (ref. 'WSON-PCE') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6163 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G.FLEXIGRID' Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Fatai Zhang 2 Internet-Draft Xiaobing Zi 3 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei 4 O. Gonzalez de Dios 5 Telefonica 6 Ramon Casellas 7 CTTC 8 Expires: April 27, 2012 October 27, 2011 10 Requirements for GMPLS Control of Flexible Grids 12 draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-requirements-01.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 17 the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 25 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 26 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 27 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 28 progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2012. 38 Abstract 40 A new flexible grid of DWDM is being developed within the ITU-T 41 Study Group 15 to allow more efficient spectrum allocation. This 42 memo describes the requirements of GMPLS control of flexible grid 43 DWDM networks. 45 Conventions used in this document 47 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 48 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 49 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction ................................................. 3 54 2. Terminology .................................................. 3 55 3. Characteristics of Flexible Grid ............................. 4 56 3.1. Central Frequency ....................................... 4 57 3.2. Slot Width .............................................. 5 58 4. Impact on WSON ............................................... 5 59 4.1. Fiber Links ............................................. 5 60 4.2. Optical Transmitters and Receivers ...................... 6 61 5. Routing and Spectrum Assignment .............................. 7 62 5.1. Architecture Approaches to RSA .......................... 8 63 5.1.1. Combined RSA (R&SA) ................................ 8 64 5.1.2. Separated RSA (R+SA) ............................... 9 65 5.1.3. Routing and Distributed SA (R+DSA) ................. 9 66 6. Requirements of GMPLS Control ................................ 9 67 6.1. Routing ................................................. 9 68 6.1.1. Available Frequency Ranges of DWDM Links .......... 10 69 6.1.2. Tunable Optical Transmitters and Receivers ........ 10 70 6.2. Signaling .............................................. 10 71 6.2.1. Slot Width Requirement ............................ 10 72 6.2.2. Frequency Slot Representation ..................... 11 73 6.3. PCE .................................................... 11 74 6.3.1. RSA Computation Type .............................. 11 75 6.3.2. RSA path re-optimization request/reply ............ 12 76 6.3.3. Frequency Constraints ............................. 12 77 7. Security Considerations ..................................... 12 78 8. References .................................................. 13 79 8.1. Normative References ................................... 13 80 8.2. Informative References ................................. 13 81 9. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 14 83 1. Introduction 85 [G.694.1v1] defines the DWDM frequency grids for WDM applications. A 86 frequency grid is a reference set of frequencies used to denote 87 allowed nominal central frequencies that may be used for defining 88 applications. The channel spacing, i.e. the frequency spacing 89 between two allowed nominal central frequencies could be 12.5 GHz, 90 25 GHz, 50 GHz, 100 GHz and integer multiples of 100 GHz as defined 91 in [G.694.1v1]. The frequency spacing of the channels on a fiber is 92 fixed. 94 The speed of the optical signal becomes higher and higher with the 95 advancement of the optical technology. In the near future, high- 96 speed signals (beyond 100 Gbit/s or even 400 Gbit/s) will be 97 deployed in optical networks. These signals may not be accommodated 98 in the channel spacing specified in [G.694.1v1]. On the other hand, 99 ''mixed rate'' scenarios will be commonplace, and bandwidth 100 requirements of the optical signals with different speed will 101 probably be quite different. As a consequence, when the optical 102 signals with different speed are mixed to be transmitted on a fiber, 103 the frequency allocation needs to be more flexible to promote the 104 efficiency. 106 An updated version of [G.694.1v1] will be consented in December 2011 107 in support of flexible grids. The terms ''frequency slot (the 108 frequency range allocated to a channel and unavailable to other 109 channels within a flexible grid)'' and ''slot width'' (the full width 110 of a frequency slot in a flexible grid) are introduced to address 111 flexible grid. A channel is represented as a LSC (Lambda Switching 112 Capable) LSP in the control plane and it means a LSC LSP should 113 occupy a frequency slot on each fiber it traverses. In the case of 114 flexible grid, different LSC LSPs may have different slot widths on 115 a fiber, i.e. the slot width is flexible on a fiber. 117 WSON related documents are being developed currently with the focus 118 of the GMPLS control of fixed grid optical networks. This document 119 describes the new characteristics of flexible grids and analyses the 120 requirements of GMPLS control for the new ''flexible grid'' based 121 optical transmission. 123 2. Terminology 125 Flexible Grid: a new WDM frequency grid defined with the aim of 126 allowing flexible optical spectrum management, in which the Slot 127 Width of the frequency ranges allocated to different channels are 128 flexible (variable sized). 130 Frequency Range: a frequency range is defined by a lowest frequency 131 and a highest frequency. 133 Frequency Slot: The frequency range allocated to a channel and 134 unavailable to other channels within a flexible grid. A frequency 135 slot is defined by its nominal central frequency and its slot width. 137 Slot Width: the full width (in Hz) of a frequency slot in a flexible 138 grid. A slot width can be expressed as a multiple (m) of a basic 139 slot width (e.g. 12.5 GHz) 141 SSON: Spectrum-Switched Optical Network. An optical network in which 142 a data plane connection is switched based on an optical spectrum 143 frequency slot of a variable (flexible) slot width, rather than 144 based on a fixed grid. Note than a wavelength switched optical 145 network (WSON) can be seen as a particular case of SSON in which all 146 slot widths are equal and depend on the used channel spacing. 148 LSC SS-LSP or flexi-LSP (Lambda Switch Capable Spectrum-Switched 149 Label Switched Path): a control plane construct that represents a 150 data plane connection in which the switching involves a frequency 151 slot of a variable (flexible) slot width. The mapped client signal 152 is transported over the frequency slot, using spectrum efficient 153 modulations such as Coherent Optical Orthogonal Frequency Division 154 Multiplexing (CO-OFDM) and Forward Error Correction (FEC) techniques. 155 Although still in the scope of LSC, the term flexi-LSP is used, when 156 needed, to differentiate from regular WSON LSP in which switching is 157 based on a nominal wavelength. 159 3. Characteristics of Flexible Grid 161 Per [G.FLEXIGRID], a flexible grid is defined for the DWDM system. 162 Compared with the fixed grids (i.e. traditional DWDM), flexible grid 163 has a smaller granularity for the central frequency and the slot 164 width of the LSC LSPs is more flexible on a fiber. 166 3.1. Central Frequency 168 According to the definition of flexible DWDM grid in [G.FLEXIGRID], 169 the step granularity for the central frequency of flexible grid is 170 6.25 GHz. The allowed nominal central frequencies are calculated as 171 in the case of flexible grid: 173 Central Frequency = 193.1 THz + n * 0.00625 THz 175 Where 193.1 THz is ITU-T ''anchor frequency'' for transmission over 176 the C band and n is a positive or negative integer including 0. 178 3.2. Slot Width 180 A slot width is defined by: 182 12.5 GHz * m, where m is a positive integer. 184 Note that, when flexi-grid is supported on a fiber or DWDM link, the 185 slot width of different flexi-LSPs may be different. 187 4. Impact on WSON 189 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) are constructed from 190 subsystems that include Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) links, 191 tunable transmitters and receivers, Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop 192 Multiplexers (ROADMs), wavelength converters, and electro-optical 193 network elements. WSON framework is described in [RFC6163]. The 194 introduced flexible grid brings some changes on WSON. 196 The concept of WSON is extended to SSON, to highlight that such 197 subsystems are extended with flexible and/or elastic capabilities 198 (i.e. flexi-grid). Note that, when modeling SSONs, a WSON can be 199 seen as a particular case of SSON where all LSC LSP use a fixed (and 200 equal) slot width which depends on the used channel spacing. 202 Transceivers may be able to fully leverage flexible optical channels 203 with advanced modulation formats, and ROADMs may need to be extended 204 to allow flexible spectrum switching, based in, for example, 205 Spectrum Selective Switches (SSS). 207 4.1. Fiber Links 209 The nominal (central) frequencies for the flexible grid are defined 210 with a granularity of 6.25 GHz and the allocated frequency slot 211 widths are defined as a multiple of 12.5 GHz. The fiber link for 212 flexible grid can be modeled as shown in figure 1. 214 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 215 ...+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--... 217 ^ 218 193.1 THz 219 <--+--> 220 6.25 6.25 m=1, n=-4 222 Figure 1 Fiber link model for flexible grid 224 The symbol '+' represents the allowed nominal central frequency. The 225 symbol ''--" represents a 6.25 GHz frequency unit. The number on the 226 top of the line represents the 'n' in the frequency calculation 227 formula. The nominal central frequency is 193.1 THz when n equals 228 zero. 230 Because the resource allocated to each flexi-LSP is a frequency 231 range on a fiber link, the following information is needed as 232 parameters to perform resource allocation for the LSPs: 234 o Available frequency ranges: The set or union of frequency ranges 235 that are not allocated (i.e., available or unused) to flexi-LSPs 236 crossing the DWDM link. The relative grouping and distribution of 237 available frequency ranges in a fiber is usually referred to as 238 ''fragmentation'' and it is common design criterion for optical 239 resource control and management. 241 4.2. Optical Transmitters and Receivers 243 In WSON, the optical transmitter is the wavelength source and the 244 optical receiver is the wavelength sink of the WDM system. In each 245 direction, the wavelength used by the transmitter and receiver along 246 a path shall be consistent if there is no wavelength converter in 247 the path. 249 In the case of flexible grids, the central frequency utilized by a 250 transmitter or receiver may be fixed or tunable. The slot width 251 needed by different transmitters or receivers may be different. 252 Hence, the changes introduced by flexible grid on fundamental 253 modeling parameters for optical transmitters and receivers from the 254 control plane perspective are: 256 o Available central frequencies: The set of central frequencies 257 which can be used by an optical transmitter or receiver. 259 o Slot width: The slot width needed by a transmitter or receiver. 261 Similarly, information on transmitters and receivers capabilities, 262 in regard to signal processing is needed to perform efficient RSA, 263 much like in WSON [WSON-ENCODE]. Additional modeling parameters are: 265 o Supported Input/Output Modulation formats and spectral efficiency 266 and reach, as well as Input/Output client signals. 268 o Supported FEC techniques. 270 5. Routing and Spectrum Assignment 272 A LSC flexi-LSP occupies a frequency slot, i.e. a range of frequency, 273 on each link the LSP traverses. The route computation and frequency 274 slot assignment could be called RSA (Routing and Spectrum 275 Assignment). 277 Similar to fixed grids network, if there is no (available) 278 wavelength converter in an optical network, a flexible grid LSC LSP 279 (flexi-LSP) resource allocation will be subject to the ''wavelength 280 continuity constraint'', which is described as section 4 of [RFC6163]. 282 Because of the high cost of the wavelength converters, an optical 283 network is generally deployed with limited or without wavelength 284 converters (sparse translucent optical network). Hence, the 285 wavelength/spectrum continuity constraint should always be 286 considered, and the possibility of wavelength conversion will not be 287 taking into account during the RSA process. When available, 288 information regarding spectrum conversion capabilities at the 289 optical nodes MAY be used by RSA mechanisms 291 The RSA should determine a route and frequency slot for a flexi-LSP. 292 Note that the mapping between client signals data rates (10, 40, 293 100... Gbps) and optical slot widths (which are dependent on 294 modulation formats and other physical layer parameters) is out of 295 the scope of the document. The frequency slot can be deduced from 296 the central frequency and slot width parameters as follows: 298 Lowest frequency = (central frequency) - (slot width)/2; 300 Highest frequency = (central frequency) + (slot width)/2. 302 Hence, when a route is computed (by the routing assignment process 303 or subprocess, RA) the spectrum assignment process (SA) should 304 determine the central frequency for a flexi-LSP based on the slot 305 width and available central frequencies information of the 306 transmitter and receiver, and the available frequency ranges 307 information of the links that the route traverses. 309 Figure 2 shows two LSC LSPs that traverse a link. 311 Frequency Slot 1 Frequency Slot 2 312 ------------- ------------------- 313 | | | | 314 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 315 ...+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--... 316 ------------- ------------------- 317 ^ ^ 318 Central F = 193.1THz Central F = 193.14375 THz 319 Slot width = 25 GHz Slot width = 37.5 GHz 321 Figure 2 Two LSC LSPs traverse a Link 323 The two wavelengths shown in figure 2 have the following meaning: 325 Flexi-LSP 1: central frequency = 193.1 THz, slot width = 25 GHz. It 326 means the frequency slot [193.0875 THz, 193.1125 THz] is assigned to 327 this LSC LSP. 329 Flexi-LSP 2: central frequency = 193.14375 THz, slot width = 37.5 330 GHz. It means the frequency slot [193.125 THz, 193.1625 THz] is 331 assigned to this LSC LSP. 333 Note that the frequency slots of two LSC flexi-LSPs on a fiber MUST 334 NOT overlap with each other. 336 5.1. Architecture Approaches to RSA 338 Similar to RWA for fixed grids, different ways of performing RSA in 339 conjunction with the control plane can be considered. The approaches 340 included in this document are provided for reference purposes only, 341 other possible options could also be deployed. 343 5.1.1. Combined RSA (R&SA) 345 In this case, a computation entity performs both routing and 346 frequency slot assignment. The computation entity should have the 347 detailed network information, e.g. connectivity topology constructed 348 by nodes/links information, available frequency ranges on each link, 349 node capability, etc. 351 The computation entity could reside on the following elements, which 352 depends on the implementation: 354 o PCE: PCE get the detailed network information and implement the 355 RSA algorithm for RSA requests from the PCCs. 357 o Ingress node: Ingress node gets the detailed network information 358 through routing protocol and implements the RSA algorithm when a 359 LSC LSP request is received. 361 5.1.2. Separated RSA (R+SA) 363 In this case, routing computation and frequency slot assignment are 364 performed by different entities. The first entity computes the 365 routes and provides them to the second entity; the second entity 366 assigns the frequency slot. 368 The first entity should get the connectivity topology to compute the 369 proper routes; the second entity should get the available frequency 370 ranges of the links and nodes' capabilities information to assign 371 the spectrum. 373 5.1.3. Routing and Distributed SA (R+DSA) 375 In this case, one entity computes the route but the frequency slot 376 assignment is performed hop-by-hop in a distributed way along the 377 route. The available central frequencies which meet the wavelength 378 continuity constraint should be collected hop by hop along the route. 379 This procedure can be implemented by the GMPLS signaling protocol. 381 The GMPLS signaling procedure is similar to the one described in 382 section 4.1.3 of [RFC6163] except that the label set should specify 383 the available central frequencies that meet the slot width 384 requirement of the LSC LSP, i.e. the frequency slot which is 385 determined by the central frequency and slot width MUST NOT overlap 386 with the existing LSC LSPs. 388 6. Requirements of GMPLS Control 390 According to the different architecture approaches to RSA some 391 additional requirements have to be considered for the GMPLS control. 393 6.1. Routing 395 In the case of combined RSA architecture, the computation entity 396 needs to get the detailed network information, i.e. connectivity 397 topology, node capabilities and available frequency ranges of the 398 links. Route computation is performed based on the connectivity 399 topology and node capabilities; spectrum assignment is performed 400 based on the available frequency ranges of the links. The 401 computation entity may get the detailed network information by the 402 GMPLS routing protocol. 404 Compared with [RFC6163], except wavelength-specific availability 405 information, the connectivity topology and node capabilities are the 406 same as WSON, which can be advertised by GMPLS routing protocol 407 (refer to section 6.2 of [RFC6163]. This section analyses the 408 necessary changes on link information brought by flexible grids. 410 6.1.1. Available Frequency Ranges of DWDM Links 412 In the case of flexible grids, channel central frequencies span from 413 193.1 THz towards both ends of the spectrum with 6.25 GHz 414 granularity. Different LSC LSPs could make use of different slot 415 widths on the same link. Hence, the available frequency ranges 416 should be advertised. 418 6.1.2. Tunable Optical Transmitters and Receivers 420 The slot width of a LSC LSP is determined by the transmitter and 421 receiver. The transmitters and receivers could be mapped to ADD/DROP 422 interfaces in WSON. Hence, the slot width of an ADD/DROP interface 423 should be advertised. 425 The central frequency of a transmitter or receiver could be fixed or 426 tunable. Hence, the available central frequencies should be 427 advertised. 429 6.2. Signaling 431 Compared with [RFC6163], except identifying the resource (i.e., 432 fixed wavelength for WSON and frequency resource for flexible grids), 433 the other signaling requirements (e.g., unidirectional or 434 bidirectional, with or without converters) are the same as WSON 435 described in the section 6.1 of [RFC6163]. 437 In the case of routing and distributed SA, GMPLS signaling can be 438 used to allocate the frequency slot to a LSC LSP. This brings the 439 following changes to the GMPLS signaling. 441 6.2.1. Slot Width Requirement 443 In order to allocate a proper frequency slot for a LSC LSP, the 444 signaling should specify the slot width requirement of a LSC LSP. 445 Then the intermediate nodes can collect the acceptable central 446 frequencies that meet the slot width requirement hop by hop. 448 The tail node also needs to know the slot width of a LSC LSP to 449 assign the proper frequency resource. Hence, the slot width 450 requirement should be specified in the signaling message when a LSC 451 LSP is being set up. 453 6.2.2. Frequency Slot Representation 455 The frequency slot can be determined by the two parameters, which 456 are central frequency and slot width as described in section 5. 457 Hence, the signaling messages should be able to specify the central 458 frequency and slot width of a LSC LSP. 460 6.3. PCE 462 [WSON-PCE] describes the architecture and requirements of PCE for 463 WSON. In the case of flexible grid, RSA instead of RWA is used for 464 routing and frequency slot assignment. Hence PCE should implement 465 RSA for flexible grids. The architecture and requirements of PCE for 466 flexible grids are similar to what is described in [WSON-PCE]. This 467 section describes the changes brought by flexible grids. 469 6.3.1. RSA Computation Type 471 A PCEP request within a PCReq message MUST be able to specify the 472 computation type of the request: 474 o Combined RSA: Both of the route and frequency slot should be 475 provided by PCE. 477 o Routing Only: Only the route is requested to be provided by PCE. 479 The PCEP response within a PCRep Message MUST be able to specify the 480 route and the frequency slot assigned to the route. 482 RSA in SSON MAY include the check of signal processing capabilities, 483 which MAY be provided by the IGP. A PCC should be able to indicate 484 additional restrictions for such signal compatibility, either on the 485 endpoint or any given link (such as regeneration points). 487 A PCC MUST be able to specify whether the PCE MUST also assign a 488 Modulation list and / or a FEC list, as defined in [WSON-ENCODE] and 489 [WSON-PCE]. 491 A PCC MUST be able to specify whether the PCE MUST or SHOULD include 492 or exclude specific modulation formats and FEC mechanisms. 494 In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST be 495 able to specify the reason (e.g., no route, spectrum not found, etc.) 497 6.3.2. RSA path re-optimization request/reply 499 For a re-optimization request, the PCEP request MUST provide the 500 path to be re-optimized and include the following options: 502 o Re-optimize the path keeping the same frequency slot. 504 o Re-optimize spectrum keeping the same path. 506 o Re-optimize allowing both frequency slot and the path to change. 508 The corresponding PCEP response for the re-optimized request MUST 509 provide the Re-optimized path and frequency slot. 511 In case the path is not found, the response MUST include the reason 512 (e.g., no route, frequency slot not found, both of route and 513 frequency slot not found, etc.) 515 6.3.3. Frequency Constraints 517 PCE for flexible grids should consider the following constraints 518 brought by the transmitters and receivers: 520 o Available central frequencies: The set of central frequencies that 521 can be used by an optical transmitter or receiver. 523 o Slot width: The slot width needed by a transmitter or receiver. 525 This constraints may be provided by the requester (PCC) in PCReq or 526 reside within the PCE's TEDB which stores the transponder's 527 capabilities. 529 PCC may also specify the frequency constraints for policy reasons. 530 In this case, the constraints should be specified in the PCReq 531 message sent to the PCE. In any case, PCE will compute the route and 532 assign the frequency slot to meet the constraints specified in the 533 PCReq message. Then return the result to the PCC. 535 7. Security Considerations 537 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 538 than those described in [RFC6163] and [RFC5920]. 540 8. References 542 8.1. Normative References 544 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate 545 requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 547 [WSON-PCE] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, Jonas Martensson, T. Takeda and T. 548 Tsuritani, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and 549 Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing- 550 wavelength-05, July 2011. 552 [WSON-ENCODE] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, Dan Li and W. Imajuku, "Routing 553 and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for 554 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp- 555 rwa-wson-encode, August 2011. 557 [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein and W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS 558 and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength 559 Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011. 561 [G.FLEXIGRID] Draft revised G.694.1 version 1.3, Unpublished ITU-T 562 Study Group 15, Question 6. 564 8.2. Informative References 566 [G.694.1v1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM 567 applications: DWDM frequency grid, June 2002. 569 [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 570 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 572 9. Authors' Addresses 574 Fatai Zhang 575 Huawei Technologies 576 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 577 Bantian, Longgang District 578 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 579 Phone: +86-755-28972912 580 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 582 Oscar Gonzalez de Dios 583 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo 584 Emilio Vargas 6 585 Madrid, 28045 586 Spain 587 Phone: +34 913374013 588 Email: ogondio@tid.es 590 Ramon Casellas 591 CTTC 592 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 593 Castelldefels, 08860, Spain 594 Phone: +34 936452900 595 Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es 597 Xiaobing Zi 598 Huawei Technologies 599 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 600 Bantian, Longgang District 601 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 602 Phone: +86-755-28973229 603 Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com 605 Felipe Jimenez Arribas 606 Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo 607 Emilio Vargas 6 608 Madrid, 28045 609 Spain 610 Email: felipej@tid.es 612 Intellectual Property 614 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 615 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 616 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 617 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 618 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 619 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 620 such rights. 622 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 623 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 624 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 625 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 626 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line 627 IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 629 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 630 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 631 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 632 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 633 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 635 The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or 636 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are 637 published by third parties, including those that are translated into 638 other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions 639 of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions 640 is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions 641 of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, 642 including those that are translated into other languages, should 643 not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal 644 Provisions. 646 For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards 647 Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of 648 the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the 649 provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 650 conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the 651 rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect 652 and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such 653 Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 655 Disclaimer of Validity 657 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are 658 provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION 659 HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET 660 SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 661 DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT 662 LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN 663 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 664 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 666 Full Copyright Statement 668 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 669 document authors. All rights reserved. 671 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 672 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 673 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 674 publication of this document. Please review these documents 675 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 676 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 677 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 678 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 679 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.