draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-02.txt 
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang, Ed. Network Working Group Fatai Zhang, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Category: Standards Track Guoying Zhang Category: Standards Track Guoying Zhang
CATR CATR
Sergio Belotti Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Khuzema Pithewan Khuzema Pithewan
Infinera Infinera
Expires: April 26, 2012 October 26, 2011 Expires: September 9, 2012 March 9, 2012
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-01.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2012.
Abstract Abstract
Recent progress in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 standardization has Recent progress in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 standardization has
introduced new ODU containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) and introduced new ODU containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) and
enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility. Several enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility. Several
recent documents have proposed ways to modify GMPLS signaling recent documents have proposed ways to modify GMPLS signaling
protocols to support these new OTN features. protocols to support these new OTN features.
It is important that a single solution is developed for use in GMPLS It is important that a single solution is developed for use in GMPLS
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3 1. Introduction .................................................. 3
2. Terminology ................................................... 4 2. Terminology ................................................... 4
3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 4 3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 4
4. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 5 4. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 5
5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 5 5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 5
5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter .................. 7 5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters ................. 7
5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................. 9 5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................. 9
6. Generalized Label ............................................. 9 6. Generalized Label ............................................. 9
6.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label ................. 10 6.1. New definition of ODU Generalized Label ................. 10
6.2. Examples ................................................ 12 6.2. Examples ................................................ 12
6.3. Label Distribution Procedure ............................ 14 6.3. Label Distribution Procedure ............................ 14
6.3.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 15 6.3.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 15
6.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 15 6.4. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 15
6.5. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations ..... 16 7. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy ............................ 16
7. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy ............................ 17 7.1. ADAPTATION Object ....................................... 17
7.1. ODU FA-LSP Creation ..................................... 18 7.2. ODU FA-LSP Creation ..................................... 19
8. Security Considerations ...................................... 18 8. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) ............... 20
9. IANA Considerations .......................................... 18 9. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations........... 21
10. References .................................................. 19 10. Security Considerations ..................................... 22
10.1. Normative References ................................... 19 11. IANA Considerations.......................................... 22
10.2. Informative References ................................. 20 12. References .................................................. 23
11. Contributors ................................................ 21 12.1. Normative References ................................... 23
12. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 21 12.2. Informative References ................................. 24
13. Acknowledgment .............................................. 24 13. Contributors ................................................ 25
14. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 25
15. Acknowledgment .............................................. 28
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] extends Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] extends
MPLS to include Layer-2 Switching (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex MPLS to include Layer-2 Switching (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex
(e.g., SONET/SDH, PDH, and ODU), Wavelength (OCh, Lambdas) Switching, (e.g., SONET/SDH, PDH, and ODU), Wavelength (OCh, Lambdas) Switching,
and Spatial Switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port and Spatial Switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port
or fiber). [RFC3471] presents a functional description of the or fiber). [RFC3471] presents a functional description of the
extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) signaling extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) signaling
required to support Generalized MPLS. RSVP-TE-specific formats and required to support Generalized MPLS. RSVP-TE-specific formats and
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
Networks (OTN), as specified in the ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709- Networks (OTN), as specified in the ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-
V1], for ODUk deployments without multiplexing. V1], for ODUk deployments without multiplexing.
In addition to increasing need to support ODUk multiplexing, the In addition to increasing need to support ODUk multiplexing, the
evolution of OTN has introduced additional containers and new evolution of OTN has introduced additional containers and new
flexibility. For example, ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 containers and ODUflex flexibility. For example, ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 containers and ODUflex
are developed in [G709-V3]. are developed in [G709-V3].
In addition, the following issues require consideration: In addition, the following issues require consideration:
- Support for hitless adjustment of ODUflex, which is to be - Support for Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) (HAO), which is
specified in ITU-T G.hao. defined in [G.7044].
- Support for Tributary Port Number. The Tributary Port Number - Support for Tributary Port Number. The Tributary Port Number
has to be negotiated on each link for flexible assignment of has to be negotiated on each link for flexible assignment of
tributary ports to tributary slots in case of LO-ODU over HO- tributary ports to tributary slots in case of LO-ODU over HO-
ODU (e.g., ODU2 into ODU3). ODU (e.g., ODU2 into ODU3).
Therefore, it is clear that [RFC4328] has to be updated or superceded Therefore, it is clear that [RFC4328] has to be updated or superceded
in order to support ODUk multiplexing, as well as other ODU in order to support ODUk multiplexing, as well as other ODU
enhancements introduced by evolution of OTN standards. enhancements introduced by evolution of OTN standards.
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
Identifier (G-PID). Identifier (G-PID).
[RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new [RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new
code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital Path)
and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in order and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in order
to accommodate [G709-v1]. to accommodate [G709-v1].
This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is
introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-V3] in introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-V3] in
order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described
in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (101, TBA by IANA) is defined in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (101, TBA by IANA) is defined in
in [OTN-OSPF]. [OTN-OSPF].
5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709
The traffic parameters for G.709 are defined as follows: The traffic parameters for G.709 are defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | Reserved | NMC/ Tolerance | | Signal Type | Reserved | NMC/ Tolerance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
of ODUflex(GFP) makes no sense on tributary slot resource reservation, of ODUflex(GFP) makes no sense on tributary slot resource reservation,
the Tolerance field for ODUflex(GFP) is not necessary and MUST be the Tolerance field for ODUflex(GFP) is not necessary and MUST be
filled with 0. filled with 0.
In case of other ODUk signal types, the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields In case of other ODUk signal types, the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields
are not necessary and MUST be set to 0. are not necessary and MUST be set to 0.
The usage of the NVC and Multiplier (MT) fields are the same as The usage of the NVC and Multiplier (MT) fields are the same as
[RFC4328]. [RFC4328].
5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameter 5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters
In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in
the ODUflex traffic parameter MUST be used to determine the total the ODUflex traffic parameters MUST be used to determine the total
number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here: number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here:
N = Ceiling of N = Ceiling of
ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance) ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)
In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of
the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 8, line 21
nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of
tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex
service. service.
Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots
are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be
reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) may not be the same on different HO reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) may not be the same on different HO
ODUk links. ODUk links.
An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR) An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR)
traffic parameter. traffic parameters.
As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service
requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C. requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C.
In other words, the ODUflex traffic parameters indicate that Signal In other words, the ODUflex traffic parameters indicate that Signal
Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is
100ppm. 100ppm.
+-----+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+ +-----+
| +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | | +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ |
| +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+ | | +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+ |
skipping to change at page 9, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2. ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance
ODU type | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance ODU type | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance
--------------------------------+------------------+----------- --------------------------------+------------------+-----------
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8 | n * ODU2.ts | +/-100 ppm ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8 | n * ODU2.ts | +/-100 ppm
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32 | n * ODU3.ts | +/-100 ppm ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32 | n * ODU3.ts | +/-100 ppm
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 | n * ODU4.ts | +/-100 ppm ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 | n * ODU4.ts | +/-100 ppm
Accoding to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST According to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST
equal to one of the 80 values listed below: equal to one of the 80 values listed below:
1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts; 1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts;
9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts; 9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts;
33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts. 33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts.
In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the
ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from
the Bit_Rate field. the Bit_Rate field.
skipping to change at page 12, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 26
ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot
will be used by LO ODUj or not. will be used by LO ODUj or not.
Padded bits are added behind the Bit Map to make the whole label a Padded bits are added behind the Bit Map to make the whole label a
multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padded bit MUST be set to 0 and multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padded bit MUST be set to 0 and
MUST be ignored. MUST be ignored.
Note that the Length field in the label format can also be used to Note that the Length field in the label format can also be used to
indicate the TS type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps indicate the TS type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps
or 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP or 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP
Object. In some cases when there is no LMP or routing to make the two Object. In some cases when there is no LMP (Link Management Protocol)
end points of the link to know the TSG, the TSG information used by or routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG,
another end can be deduced from the label format. For example, for HO the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the label
ODU2 link, the value of the length filed will be 4 or 8, which format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the length filed
indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively. will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or
1.25Gbps, respectively.
6.2. Examples 6.2. Examples
The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label
format described in the previous sections of this document. format described in the previous sections of this document.
(1) ODUk into OTUk mapping: (1) ODUk into OTUk mapping:
In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label
indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT > 1), multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT > 1),
the first label indicates the components of the first multiplexed the first label indicates the components of the first multiplexed
virtually concatenated signal; the second label indicates components virtually concatenated signal; the second label indicates components
of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; and so on. of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; and so on.
In case of Multiple LSPs style, multiple control plane LSPs are In case of Multiple LSPs style, multiple control plane LSPs are
created with a single VCG and the VCAT Call can be used to associate created with a single VCG and the VCAT Call can be used to associate
the control plane LSPs. The procedures are similar to section 6 of the control plane LSPs. The procedures are similar to section 6 of
[RFC6344]. [RFC6344].
6.5. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations
Since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in the network for the nodes
that support [G709-V1], we call nodes supporting [RFC4328] "legacy
nodes". Backward compatibility SHOULD be taken into consideration
when the new nodes (i.e., nodes that support RSVP-TE extensions
defined in this document) and the legacy nodes are interworking.
For backward compatibility consideration, the new node SHOULD have
the ability to generate and parse legacy labels.
o A legacy node always generates and sends legacy label to its
upstream node, no matter the upstream node is new or legacy, as
described in [RFC4328].
o A new node SHOULD generate and send legacy labels if its upstream
node is a legacy one, and generate and send new label if its
upstream node is a new one.
One backward compatibility example is shown in Figure 2:
Path Path Path Path
+-----+ ----> +-----+ ----> +------+ ----> +------+ ----> +-----+
| | | | | | | | | |
| A +-------+ B +-------+ C +-------+ D +-------+ E |
| new | | new | |legacy| |legacy| | new |
+-----+ <---- +-----+ <---- +------+ <---- +------+ <---- +-----+
Resv Resv Resv Resv
(new label) (legacy label) (legacy label) (legacy label)
Figure 2 - Backwards compatibility example
As described above, for backward compatibility considerations, it is
necessary for a new node to know whether the neighbor node is new or
legacy.
One optional method is manual configuration, but it is recommended to
use LMP to discover the capability of the neighbor node automatically,
as described in [OTN-LMP].
When performing the HO ODU link capability negotiation:
o If the neighbor node only support the 2.5Gbps TS and only support
ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, the neighbor node SHOULD be treated as a legacy
node.
o If the neighbor node can support the 1.25Gbps TS, or can support
other LO ODU types defined in [G709-V3]), the neighbor node SHOULD
be treated as new node.
o If the neighbor node returns a LinkSummaryNack message including
an ERROR_CODE indicating nonsupport of HO ODU link capability
negotiation, the neighbor node SHOULD be treated as a legacy node.
7. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy 7. Supporting Multiplexing Hierarchy
As described in [OTN-FWK], one ODUj connection can be nested into As described in [OTN-FWK], one ODUj connection can be nested into
another ODUk (j<k) connection, which forms the multiplexing hierarchy another ODUk (j<k) connection, which forms the multiplexing hierarchy
in the ODU layer. This is useful if there are some intermediate nodes in the ODU layer. This is useful if there are some intermediate nodes
in the network which only support ODUk but not ODUj switching. in the network which only support ODUk but not ODUj switching.
For example, in Figure 3, assume that N3 is a legacy node which only For example, in Figure 2, assume that N3 is a legacy node which only
supports [G709-V1] and does not support ODU0 switching. If an ODU0 supports [G709-V1] and does not support ODU0 switching. If an ODU0
connection between N1 and N5 is required, then we can create an ODU2 connection between N1 and N5 is required, then we can create an ODU2
connection between N2 and N4 (or ODU1 / ODU3 connection, depending on connection between N2 and N4 (or ODU1 / ODU3 connection, depending on
policies and the capabilities of the two ends of the connection), and policies and the capabilities of the two ends of the connection), and
nest the ODU0 into the ODU2 connection. In this way, N3 only needs to nest the ODU0 into the ODU2 connection. In this way, N3 only needs to
perform ODU2 switching and does not need to be aware of the ODU0 perform ODU2 switching and does not need to be aware of the ODU0
connection. connection.
| | | |
|<------------------- ODU0 Connection -------------------->| |<------------------- ODU0 Connection -------------------->|
| | | | | | | |
| |<---- ODU2 Connection ----->| | | |<---- ODU2 Connection ----->| |
| | | | | | | |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| N1 +---------+ N2 +=========+ N3 +=========+ N4 +---------+ N5 | | N1 +---------+ N2 +=========+ N3 +=========+ N4 +---------+ N5 |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link ODU3 link
Figure 3 - Example of multiplexing hierarchy Figure 2 - Example of multiplexing hierarchy
The control plane signaling should support the provisioning of The control plane signaling should support the provisioning of
hierarchical multiplexing. Two methods are provided below (taking hierarchical multiplexing. Two methods are provided below (taking
Figure 3 as example): Figure 2 as example):
- Using the multi-layer network signaling described in [RFC4206], - Using the multi-layer network signaling described in [RFC4206],
[RFC6107] and [RFC6001] (including related modifications, if [RFC6107] and [RFC6001] (including related modifications, if
needed). That is, when the signaling message for ODUO connection needed). That is, when the signaling message for ODUO connection
arrives at N2, a new RSVP session between N2 and N4 is triggered arrives at N2, a new RSVP session between N2 and N4 is triggered
to create the ODU2 connection. This ODU2 connection is treated as to create the ODU2 connection. This ODU2 connection is treated as
a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) after it is created. And then the a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) after it is created. And then the
signaling procedure for the ODU0 connection can be continued using signaling procedure for the ODU0 connection can be continued using
the resource of the ODU2 FA. the resource of the ODU2 FA.
skipping to change at page 18, line 23 skipping to change at page 17, line 15
For both methods, when creating an FA-LSP(e.g., ODU2 FA-LSP), the For both methods, when creating an FA-LSP(e.g., ODU2 FA-LSP), the
penultimate hop needs to choose a correct outgoing interface for the penultimate hop needs to choose a correct outgoing interface for the
ODU2 connection, so that the destination node can support ODU2 connection, so that the destination node can support
multiplexing and de-multiplexing LO ODU signal(e.g., ODU0). In order multiplexing and de-multiplexing LO ODU signal(e.g., ODU0). In order
to choose a correct outgoing interface for the penultimate hop of the to choose a correct outgoing interface for the penultimate hop of the
FA-LSP, multiplexing capability (i.e., what client signal type that FA-LSP, multiplexing capability (i.e., what client signal type that
can be adapted directly to this FA-LSP) should be carried in the can be adapted directly to this FA-LSP) should be carried in the
signaling to setup this FA-LSP. In addition, when Auto_Negotiation in signaling to setup this FA-LSP. In addition, when Auto_Negotiation in
the data plane is not enabled, TS granularity may also be needed. the data plane is not enabled, TS granularity may also be needed.
7.1. ODU FA-LSP Creation 7.1. ADAPTATION Object
The required hierarchies and TS type for both ends of an FA-LSP is In order to create ODU FA-LSP (i.e., the server layer LSP) for
for further study. carrying the client LSP, a new object called ADAPTATION Object is
introduced, with two TLVs defined in this document:
8. Security Considerations - Type 1 = Server TSG signaling
- Type 2 = Hierarchy signaling
(1) Type=1 - Server TSG TLV
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (TSG) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TSG | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TSG: Tributary Slot Granularity (8bit): Used for signaling the server
layer TSG:
- 0 - Reserved
- 1 - either 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps
- 2 - 2.5Gbps
- 3 - 1.25Gbps
- 4~255 - Reserved
Where value 1 is used where the fallback procedure at the source end
of FA is enabled and the default value of 1.25Gbps can be fallen back
to 2.5Gbps. This means that either 1.25 Gpbs or 2.5 Gbps can be used
as the server TSG at the sink end of FA.
Values 2 and 3 are used to signal a 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps interfaces
respectively and there is no chance to modify it.
Other values are reserved for future extension.
(2) Type=2 - Hierarchy TLV
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Hierarchy) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | Signal Type | Mapping |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | Signal Type | Mapping |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A Hierarchy TLV for each branch of the client signal multiplexing
supported by the server LSP MUST be used. Inside each TLV a row for
each stage of the hierarchy MUST be included.
A row for the server stage MUST NOT be included as it is already
signaled via the Traffic Parameters.
The number of stages is implicitly inferred from the length value.
The meaning of the fields is defined as follow:
LSP Encoding Type and Switching Type: These fields can assume any
value inherited from the Generalized Label Request Object in GMPLS
signaling, defined in [RFC3471] and following related RFCs and
drafts.
Signal Type: In the case of non OTN signal types, this field MUST
be set to 0, while in the case of OTN signal types if MUST be
filled accordingly to [RFC4328] and this document.
Mapping: This field indicates the mapping function used in each
client-server relationship of the hierarchy. The values of this
field are listed below:
Value Type
----- ------
0 Reserved
1 AMP
2 BMP
3 GMP
4 GFP-F
5 GFP-T
6-255 Reserved
For example, in order to create ODU3 FA-LSP passing through a set of
ODU4 links to perform ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy, the Hierarchy TLV
can be used to indicate the ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing and ODU1 into
ODU2 multiplexing stages.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Hierarchy) | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enc.=12(ODUk) | Switching=101 | Sig. = ODU2 | Mapping = AMP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enc.=12(ODUk) | Switching=101 | Sig. = ODU1 | Mapping = AMP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.2. ODU FA-LSP Creation
When creating an ODU FA-LSP, the source node (e.g., node N2 in Figure
2) can include the ADAPTATION object to specify the desired hierarchy
capabilities.
On receiving the Path message, the penultimate node on the FA-LSP
(e.g., node N3 in Figure 2) MUST select an outgoing link which has
the ability to carry the requested ODU FA-LSP which can support the
TS granularity and the multiplexing hierarchy listed in the
ADAPTATION object at the remote end of the link (Note that such
remote capability information can be obtained through LMP, routing
protocol or configuration). Then the penultimate node uses the IF_ID
RSVP_HOP Object to indicate the selected link for carrying the FA-LSP,
as described in [RFC3473]. If no link supporting the specified
hierarchy capabilities, a ParhErr message with Error Code = 38 (LSP
Hierarchy Issue) and Error Value = y1(new value) MUST be sent back to
upstream.
Other intermediate nodes along the FA-LSP don't need to process the
ADAPTATION object, just forwarding it to the next node in the Path
message, without any modification.
8. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP)
[G.7044] describes the procedure of ODUflex (GFP) hitless resizing
using LCR (Link Connection Resize) and BWR (Bandwidth Resize)
protocols in OTN data plane.
For the control plane, signaling messages are required to initiate
the adjustment procedure. Section 2.5 and Section 4.6.4 of [RFC3209]
describe how the Share Explicit (SE) style is used in TE network for
bandwidth increasing and decreasing, which is still applicable for
triggering the ODUflex (GFP) adjustment procedure in data plane.
Note that the SE style SHOULD be used at the beginning when creating
a resizable ODUflex connection (Signal Type = 21). Otherwise an error
with Error Code "Conflicting reservation style" will be generated
when performing bandwidth adjustment.
If any node along the ODUflex connection doesn't support hitless
resizing, a Notify message with Error Code = x2 and Error Value = y1
will be sent to the source node. The source node MAY keep the
connection and treat it as a non resizable ODUflex connection, or MAY
tear it down, depending on the local policy.
- Bandwidth increasing
In order to increase the bandwidth of an ODUflex (GFP) connection,
a Path message with SE style (keeping Tunnel ID unchanged and
assigning a new LSP ID) is sent along the path.
A downstream node compares the old Traffic Parameters (stored
locally) with the new one carried in the Path message, to
determine the number of TS to be added. After choosing and
reserving new free TS, the downstream node sends back a Resv
message carrying both the old and new LABEL Objects in the SE
flow descriptor, so that its upstream neighbor can determine
which TS are added. And the LCR protocol between each pair of
neighbor nodes is triggered.
On the source node, the BWR protocol will be triggered by the
successful completion of LCR protocols on every hop after Resv
message is processed. On success of BWR, the source node SHOULD
send a PathTear message to delete the old control state (i.e.,
the control state of the ODUflex (GFP) before resizing) on the
control plane.
- Bandwidth decreasing
The SE style can also be used for ODUflex bandwidth decreasing.
For each pair of neighbor nodes, the sending and receiving Resv
message with old and new LABEL Objects will trigger the first
step of LCR between them to perform LCR handshake. On the source
node, the BWR protocol will be triggered by the successful
completion of LCR handshake on every hop after Resv message is
processed. On success of BWR, the second step of LCR, i.e., link
connection decrease procedure will be started on every hop of the
connection.
Similarly, after completion of bandwidth decreasing, a ResvErr
message SHOULD be sent to tear down the old control state.
9. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations
Since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in the network for the nodes
that support [G709-V1], control plane backward compatibility SHOULD
be taken into consideration when the new nodes (supporting [G709-V3]
and RSVP-TE extensions defined in this document) and the legacy nodes
(supporting [G709-V1] and [RFC4328]) are interworking.
The backward compatibility needs to be considered only when
controlling ODU1 or ODU2 or ODU3 connection, because legacy nodes can
only support these three ODU signal types. In such case, new nodes
can fall back to use signaling message defined in [RFC4328] when
detecting legacy node on the path. More detailedly:
o When receiving Path message using [RFC4328] (i.e., Switching Type
= 100), a new node SHOULD follow [RFC4328] to process and reply it.
o A source node of an ODU LSP can send Path message using new OTN
control message (with new Switching Type = 101, TBA by IANA). If
there is legacy node on the LSP, it will fail to process the
Generalized Label Request Object because of unknown of the new
Switching Type, and reply a PathErr message indicating unknown of
this object. The source node MAY re-signal the Path message using
[RFC4328], depending on local policies.
o Alternatively, if a new node has known that its neighbor only
supports [RFC4328] in advance (e.g., through manual configuration
or auto discovery mechanism), the new node MAY act as an RSVP
agent to translate new RSVP-TE message into old one before sending
to its neighbor.
No special compatibility consideration needs to be taken if the
legacy device has updated its control plane to support this document.
10. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to the This document introduces no new security considerations to the
existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473], further existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473], further
details of the specific security measures are provided. Additionally, details of the specific security measures are provided. Additionally,
[GMPLS-SEC] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and [GMPLS-SEC] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and
protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane.
9. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
- G.709 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects: - G.709 SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects:
The traffic parameters, which are carried in the G.709 The traffic parameters, which are carried in the G.709
SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects, do not require any new object SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects, do not require any new object
class and type based on [RFC4328]: class and type based on [RFC4328]:
o G.709 SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] o G.709 SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328]
o G.709 FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328] o G.709 FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 5 [RFC4328]
- Generalized Label Object: - Generalized Label Object:
The new defined ODU label (Section 6) is a kind of generalized The new defined ODU label (Section 6) is a kind of generalized
label. Therefore, the Class-Num and C-Type of the ODU label is label. Therefore, the Class-Num and C-Type of the ODU label is
the same as that of generalized label described in [RFC3473], the same as that of generalized label described in [RFC3473],
i.e., Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2. i.e., Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2.
10. References - ADAPTATION Object:
10.1. Normative References New object with Class-Num = xx, C-Type = xx. See Section 7 for
the detail definition.
- Error Code = 38 (LSP Hierarchy Issue, referring to [RFC6107]):
A new Error Value is added to the Error Code "LSP Hierarchy
Issue":
Error Value Error case
--------------------------------------------------------------
y1 Last hop of an ODU FA-LSP doesn't support
specified adaption capabilities (Section 7.2).
- Error Code = x2:
New Error Code, indicating errors occurring when controlling a
resizable ODUflex connection.
Error Value Error case
--------------------------------------------------------------
y1 Do not support hitless assignment of ODUflex (GFP)
(Section 8).
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006. Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.
skipping to change at page 20, line 33 skipping to change at page 24, line 33
[OTN-LMP] Fatai Zhang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) [OTN-LMP] Fatai Zhang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)
extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft- extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft-
zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery-04.txt, April 6, 2011. zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery-04.txt, April 6, 2011.
[G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN) [G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)
", G.709/Y.1331, December 2009. ", G.709/Y.1331, December 2009.
[G709-V3-A2] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network [G709-V3-A2] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN) Amendment 2", G.709/y.1331 Amendment 2, April 2011. (OTN) Amendment 2", G.709/y.1331 Amendment 2, April 2011.
10.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[G709-V1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," [G709-V1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN),"
G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001 G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001
(November 2001). (November 2001).
[G709-V2] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," [G709-V2] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN),"
G.709 Recommendation, March 2003. G.709 Recommendation, March 2003.
[G798-V2] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network [G798-V2] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network
hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798, December hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798, December
2006. 2006.
[G798-V3] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network [G798-V3] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network
hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798v3, consented hierarchy equipment functional blocks", G.798v3, consented
June 2010. June 2010.
[G.7044] ITU-T, "Hitless adjustment of ODUflex", G.7044 (and
Amendment 1), February 2012.
[RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation [RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006. Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006.
[IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", [IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, August 1985. Electronics Engineers, August 1985.
[GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009. Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009.
11. Contributors 13. Contributors
Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs
Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com
Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent
Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com
Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies
Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com
Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson
Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com
Lyndon Ong, Ciena Lyndon Ong, Ciena
Email: lyong@ciena.com Email: lyong@ciena.com
Biao Lu, infinera Biao Lu, infinera
Email: blu@infinera.com Email: blu@infinera.com
12. Authors' Addresses 14. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912 Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Guoying Zhang Guoying Zhang
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094272 Phone: +86-10-68094272
Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn
Sergio Belotti Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
skipping to change at page 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 28, line 7
Email: rrao@infinera.com Email: rrao@infinera.com
John E Drake John E Drake
Juniper Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Igor Bryskin Igor Bryskin
Adva Optical Adva Optical
EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com
13. Acknowledgment 15. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for
their useful comments to the document. their useful comments to the document.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 288 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/