draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor
Internet Draft Internet Draft
Expiration Date: April 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) Expiration Date: June 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel) Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
Ayan Banerjee (Calient) Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
Lou Berger (Movaz) Lou Berger (Movaz)
Greg Bernstein (Ciena) Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
Angela Chiu (Celion) Angela Chiu (Celion)
John Drake (Calient) John Drake (Calient)
Yanhe Fan (Axiowave) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
Michele Fontana (Alcatel) Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Juergen Heiles(Siemens) Juergen Heiles(Siemens)
skipping to change at line 34 skipping to change at line 34
Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium) Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
Debanjan Saha (Tellium) Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) Vishal Sharma (Metanoia)
George Swallow (Cisco) George Swallow (Cisco)
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
Eve Varma (Lucent) Eve Varma (Lucent)
Maarten Vissers (Lucent) Maarten Vissers (Lucent)
Yangguang Xu (Lucent) Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
October 2001 December 2001
GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may
also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress." progress."
E. Mannie Editor 1 E. Mannie Editor 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document is a companion to the GMPLS signaling extensions to This document is a companion to the GMPLS signaling extensions to
control SONET and SDH document [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] that defines the control SONET and SDH document [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] that defines the
SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS
signaling. signaling.
This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to
control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and control four optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and
SDH features: arbitrary concatenation, per byte transparency and SDH features: group signals, arbitrary concatenation, virtual
the virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated signals. concatenation of contiguously concatenated signals and per byte
transparency.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [GMPLS-ARCH] extends MPLS from supporting Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [GMPLS-ARCH] extends MPLS from supporting
packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching
to include support of three new classes of interfaces and to include support of four new classes of interfaces and
switching: Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex
Fiber-Switch (FSC). (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).
A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling
needed to support the new classes of interfaces and switching is needed to support the new classes of interfaces and switching is
provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-TE specific provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-TE specific
formats and mechanisms needed to support all four classes of formats and mechanisms needed to support all five classes of
interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [GMPLS-LDP]. interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [GMPLS-LDP].
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] presents details that are specific to SONET/SDH. [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] presents details that are specific to SONET/SDH.
Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the
signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects. signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.
This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to
control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and control four optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET/SDH
SDH features: arbitrary concatenation (section 2), per byte features: group signals (section 2), arbitrary concatenation
transparency (section 3) and the virtual concatenation of (section 3), virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated
contiguously concatenated signals (section 4). Section 5 gives signals (section 4), and per byte transparency (section 5).
examples of SONET/SDH traffic parameters (also referred to as Section 6 gives examples of SONET/SDH traffic parameters (also
signal coding) when requesting a SDH/SONET LSP. referred to as signal coding) when requesting a SONET/SDH LSP.
Such useful features are already implemented or under develoment Such features are already implemented or under development by a
by a significant number of manufacturers. For instance, arbitrary significant number of manufacturers. For instance, arbitrary
concatenation is already implemented in many legacy SONET and SDH concatenation is already implemented in many legacy SONET and SDH
equipment that don't support any byte-oriented protocol based equipment that don't support any byte-oriented protocol based
control plane. control plane.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
This document doesn't specify how to implement these features in This document doesn't specify how to implement these features in
the transmission plane but how to control their usage with a GMPLS the transmission plane but how to control their usage with a GMPLS
control plane. control plane.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Contiguous Concatenation Extension 2. Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals
This section defines the following optional additional Signal Type
values for the Signal Type field of section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-
SDH]:
Value Type
----- ---------------------
13 VTG / TUG-2
14 TUG-3
15 STSG-3 / AUG-1
16 STSG-12 / AUG-4
17 STSG-48 / AUG-16
18 STSG-192 / AUG-64
19 STSG-768 / AUG-256
Administrative Unit Group-Ns (AUG-Ns) and STS Groups-3*Ns (STSG-Ms),
are logical objects defined as a collection of AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-
4s/STS-3c SPEs and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs (X = 4,16,64,256).
When used as a signal type this means that all the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs,
VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs in the AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs,
AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs that comprise the AUG-
N/STSG-3*N are switched together as one unique signal.
In addition the structure of the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs
and VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs in the AUG-N/STSG-3*N are preserved and
are allowed to change over the life of an AUG-N/STSG-3*N.
It is this flexibility in the relationships between the component VCs
or SPEs that differentiates this signal from a set of VC-3s/STS-
1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs. Whether the AUG-
N/STSG-3*N is structured with AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs
and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs does not need to be specified and is
allowed to change over time. The same reasoning applies to TUG-2/VTG
and TUG-3 signal types.
For example an STSG-48 could at one time consist of four STS-12c
signals and at another point in time of three STS-12c signals and
four STS-3c signals.
Note that the use of VTG, TUG-X, AUG-N and STSG-M as circuit types is
not described in ANSI and ITU-T standards. These signal types are
conceptual objects that intend to designate a group of physical
objects in the data plane.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
3. Contiguous Concatenation Extension
This section defines the following optional extension flag for the This section defines the following optional extension flag for the
Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field defined in section Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field defined in section
2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]: 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]:
Flag 2 (bit 2): Arbitrary contiguous concatenation. Flag 2 (bit 2): Arbitrary contiguous concatenation.
This flag allows an upstream node to signal to a downstream node This flag allows an upstream node to signal to a downstream node
that it supports arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This type of that it supports arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This type of
concatenation is not defined by ANSI or ITU-T. concatenation is not defined by ANSI or ITU-T.
Arbitrary contiguous concatenation allows for any value of X (X Arbitrary contiguous concatenation allows the contiguous
less or equal N) in VC-4-X/STS-X resulting in a VC-4-Xa/STS-Xa concatenation of any number X of VC-4/STS-1 SPE/STS-3c SPE with X
less or equal N, resulting in a VC-4-Xa/STS-1-Xa SPE/STS-3c-Xa SPE
signal. In addition, it allows the arbitrary contiguous signal. In addition, it allows the arbitrary contiguous
concatenated signal to start at any location (AU-4/STS-1 timeslot) concatenated signal to start at any location (AU-4/STS-1 timeslot)
in the STM-N/STS-N signal. in the STM-N/STS-N signal.
This flag can be setup together with Flag 1 (Standard Contiguous This flag can be setup together with Flag 1 (Standard Contiguous
Concatenation) to give a choice to the downstream node. The Concatenation) to give a choice to the downstream node. The
resulting type of contiguous concatenation can be different at resulting type of contiguous concatenation can be different at
each hop according to the result of the negotiation. each hop according to the result of the negotiation.
A label is assigned following the same rule as for the Standard A label is assigned following the same rule as for the Standard
Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]). Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]).
3. Transparency Extension 4. Virtual Concatenation Extension
This section defines the following optional extension for the
signals that can be virtually concatenated.
In addition to the elementary signal types, which can be virtual
concatenated as described in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH],
identical contiguously concatenated signals may be virtually
concatenated. In this last case, it allows for instance to request
the virtual concatenation of several VC-4-4c/STS-12c SPEs (i.e.
per [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] (STS-3c)-4c SPE), or more generally any VC-
4-Xc/STS-3c-Xc SPEs to obtain a VC-4-Xc-Yv/STS-3c-Xc-Yv.
The virtual concatenation can also be applied to arbitrary
contiguously concatenated signals to form VC-4-Xa-Yv/STS-1-Xa-Yv
SPE/STS-3c-Xa-Yv SPE. Note that STS-3c-Xa-Yv SPE signal is
described only for completeness of the mechanism defined in this
document.
The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each
virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths.
Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over
the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This
is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is
indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having
its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated
between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then
be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated).
In case of virtual concatenation of a contiguously concatenated
signal, the same rule as described in section 3 of [GMPLS-SONET-
SD] for virtual concatenation applies, except that a component of
the virtually concatenated signal is now a contiguously
concatenated signal. The first label indicates the first
contiguously concatenated signal; the second label indicates the
second contiguously concatenated signal, and so on.
5. Transparency Extension
This section defines the following optional extension for the This section defines the following optional extension for the
Transparency field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]. Transparency field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH].
This "extended" transparency (simply referred here as This "extended" transparency (simply referred here as
transparency) can be requested for a particular SOH/RSOH or transparency) can be requested for a particular SOH/RSOH or
MSOH/LOH field in the STM-N/STS-N signal. MSOH/LOH field in the STM-N/STS-N signal.
Transparency is not applied at the interfaces of the initiating Transparency is not applied at the interfaces of the initiating
and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate
LSRs. Moreover, the transparency extensions can be implemented LSRs. Moreover, the transparency extensions can be implemented
effectively in very different ways, e.g. by forwarding the effectively in very different ways, e.g. by forwarding the
corresponding overhead bytes unmodified, or by tunneling the corresponding overhead bytes unmodified, or by tunneling the
bytes. bytes.
This specification specifies neither how transparency is achieved; This document specifies neither how transparency is achieved; nor
nor the behavior of the signal at the egress of the transparent the behavior of the signal at the egress of the transparent
network during fault conditions at the ingress of the transparent network during fault conditions at the ingress of the transparent
network or within the transparent network; nor network deployment network or within the transparent network; nor network deployment
scenarios. The signaling is independent of these considerations. scenarios. The signaling is independent of these considerations.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
When the signaling is used between intermediate nodes it is up to When the signaling is used between intermediate nodes it is up to
a data plane profile or specification to indicate how transparency a data plane profile or specification to indicate how transparency
is effectively achieved in the data plane. When the signaling is is effectively achieved in the data plane. When the signaling is
used at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs it used at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs it
is up to the data plane specification to guarantee compliant is up to the data plane specification to guarantee compliant
behavior to G.707/T1.105 under fault free and fault conditions. behavior to G.707/T1.105 under fault free and fault conditions.
Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete
previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed. Note previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed. Note
that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete
previous frame, except the SOH/RSOH. previous frame, except the SOH/RSOH.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
The different transparency extension flags are the following: The different transparency extension flags are the following:
Flag 3 (bit 3) : J0. Flag 3 (bit 3) : J0.
Flag 4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3). Flag 4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3).
Flag 5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12). Flag 5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12).
Flag 6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156). Flag 6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156).
Flag 7 (bit 7) : K1/K2. Flag 7 (bit 7) : K1/K2.
Flag 8 (bit 8) : E1. Flag 8 (bit 8) : E1.
Flag 9 (bit 9) : F1. Flag 9 (bit 9) : F1.
Flag 10 (bit 10): E2. Flag 10 (bit 10): E2.
Flag 11 (bit 11): B1. Flag 11 (bit 11): B1.
Flag 12 (bit 12): B2. Flag 12 (bit 12): B2.
Flag 13 (bit 13): M0.
Flag 14 (bit 14): M1.
Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency (refer to section 2.1 of Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency (refer to section 2.1 of
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) can be combined only with any of the following [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) can be combined only with any of the following
transparency types: J0, SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3), E1, F1; and all transparency types: J0, SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3), E1, F1; and all
other transparency flags must be ignored. other transparency flags must be ignored.
Note that the extended LOH/MSOH DCC (D13-D156) is only applicable Note that the extended LOH/MSOH DCC (D13-D156) is only applicable
to (defined for) STS-768/STM-256. to (defined for) STS-768/STM-256.
If B1 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit If B1 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit
skipping to change at line 219 skipping to change at line 314
preserved. This means that a B1 bit error detection as described preserved. This means that a B1 bit error detection as described
above performed after the transparent transport (at a RS/Section above performed after the transparent transport (at a RS/Section
termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur
between the B1 insertion point (RS/Section termination source) and between the B1 insertion point (RS/Section termination source) and
this point. Any intended changes to the previous RS/Section frame this point. Any intended changes to the previous RS/Section frame
content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g. content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g.
modifications of the RS/Section overhead, modifications of the modifications of the RS/Section overhead, modifications of the
payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the
B1 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. B1 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
If B2 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit If B2 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit
error supervision functionality provided by the B2. The B2 contains error supervision functionality provided by the B2. The B2 contains
the BIP24*N/BIP8*N calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the the BIP24*N/BIP8*N calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the
STM-N/STS-N signal at the MS/Line termination source. At the MS/Line STM-N/STS-N signal at the MS/Line termination source. At the MS/Line
termination sink the B2 BIP is compared with the local BIP also termination sink the B2 BIP is compared with the local BIP also
calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the STM-N/STS-N. Any calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the STM-N/STS-N. Any
difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit
error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case
of B2 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means of B2 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means
that a B2 bit error detection as described above performed after the that a B2 bit error detection as described above performed after the
transparent transport (at a MS/Line termination sink) indicates transparent transport (at a MS/Line termination sink) indicates
exactly the bit errors that occur between the B2 insertion point exactly the bit errors that occur between the B2 insertion point
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
(MS/Line termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to (MS/Line termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to
the previous MS/Line frame content due to the implementation of the the previous MS/Line frame content due to the implementation of the
transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the MS/Line overhead, transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the MS/Line overhead,
modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to
be reflected in the B2 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. be reflected in the B2 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly.
4. Virtual Concatenation Extension M1 and M1/M0 transparency are only meaningful when the B2
transparency is requested.
This section defines the following optional extension for the
signals that can be virtually concatenated.
In addition to the elementary signal types, which can be virtual
concatenated as indicated in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH],
identical contiguously concatenated signals may be virtual
concatenated. In this last case, it allows to request the virtual
concatenation of, for instance, several VC-4-4c/STS-12c SPEs (i.e.
per [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] (STS-3c)-4c SPE), or any VC-4-Xc/STS-Xc SPEs
to obtain a VC-4-Xc-Yv/STS-Xc-Yv SPE.
Note that the standard definition for virtual concatenation allows
each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse
paths. Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel
over the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP.
This is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component)
link. Note however, that the routing of components on different
paths is indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each
one having its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and
terminated between the same nodes and their corresponding
components can then be associated together (i.e. virtually
concatenated).
In case of virtual concatenation of a contiguously concatenated
signal, the same rule as described in section 3 of [GMPLS-SONET-
SD] for virtual concatenation applies, except that a component of
the virtually concatenated signal is now a contiguously
concatenated signal. The first label indicates the first
contiguously concatenated signal; the second label indicates the
second contiguously concatenated signal, and so on.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
5. Examples 6. Examples
This section defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their This section defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their
objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic
parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH
signals. signals.
As stated in [GMPLS_SONET_SDH], signal types are Elementary As stated in [GMPLS_SONET_SDH], signal types are Elementary
Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and
transparency transforms can be applied. transparency transforms can be applied.
skipping to change at line 311 skipping to change at line 374
4. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is 4. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an
STS-768 Elementary Signal. STS-768 Elementary Signal.
5. 4 x STS-12 signals with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is 5. 4 x STS-12 signals with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary
Signal. Signal.
6. 2 x STS-4a-5v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC 6. A VC-4-3a signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag
with flag 2 (for arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with
value 4, NVC with value 5, MT with value 2 and T with value 0 to
an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
7. A VC-4-3a signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag
2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC with 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC with
value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary
Signal. Signal.
8. An STS-34a SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 7. An STS-1-34a SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 34, with flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 34, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an
SPE Elementary Signal. STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
6. Acknowledgments E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
Valuable comments and input were received from many people. 8. 2 x STS-1-4a-5v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
with flag 2 (for arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with
value 4, NVC with value 5, MT with value 2 and T with value 0 to
an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 6 7. Acknowledgments
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
7. Security Considerations Valuable comments and input were received from many people.
8. Security Considerations
This draft introduces no new security considerations to [GMPLS- This draft introduces no new security considerations to [GMPLS-
SONET-SDH]. SONET-SDH].
8. References 9. References
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS - [GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt,
July 2001. November 2001.
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft, CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt,
July 2001. November 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS [GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft, Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt,
July 2001. November 2001.
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions for SONET [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions for SONET
and SDH control", Internet Draft, and SDH control", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt, August 2001. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt, December
2001.
[GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet [GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet
Draft, draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt, June Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt,
2001. November 2001.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
9. Authors Addresses E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
10. Authors Addresses
Stefan Ansorge Stefan Ansorge
Alcatel SEL AG Alcatel
Lorenzstrasse 10 Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart 70435 Stuttgart
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44 Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44
Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de
Peter Ashwood-Smith Peter Ashwood-Smith
Nortel Networks Corp. Nortel Networks Corp.
P.O. Box 3511 Station C, P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 4534 Phone: +1 613 763 4534
Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972-3645 Phone: +1 408 972-3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net Email: abanerjee@calient.net
Lou Berger Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc. Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive 7926 Jones Branch Drive
skipping to change at line 423 skipping to change at line 487
Phone: +1 732 747 9987 Phone: +1 732 747 9987
Email: angela.chiu@celion.com Email: angela.chiu@celion.com
John Drake John Drake
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720 Phone: +1 408 972 3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: jdrake@calient.net
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
Yanhe Fan Yanhe Fan
Axiowave Networks, Inc. Axiowave Networks, Inc.
100 Nickerson Road 100 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752 Marlborough, MA 01752
Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627 Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
Email: yfan@axiowave.com Email: yfan@axiowave.com
Michele Fontana Michele Fontana
Alcatel TND-Vimercate Alcatel
Via Trento 30, Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7053 Phone: +39 039 686-7053
Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
Gert Grammel Gert Grammel
Alcatel TND-Vimercate Alcatel
Via Trento 30, Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7060 Phone: +39 039 686-7060
Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it
Juergen Heiles Juergen Heiles
Siemens AG Siemens AG
Hofmannstr. 51 Hofmannstr. 51
D-81379 Munich, Germany D-81379 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64 Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64
skipping to change at line 478 skipping to change at line 542
25 Castilian 25 Castilian
Goleta, CA 93117 Goleta, CA 93117
Email: jplang@calient.net Email: jplang@calient.net
Zhi-Wei Lin Zhi-Wei Lin
101 Crawfords Corner Rd 101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
Phone: +1 732 949 5141 Phone: +1 732 949 5141
Email: zwlin@lucent.com Email: zwlin@lucent.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
Ben Mack-Crane Ben Mack-Crane
Tellabs Tellabs
Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
EBONE EBONE
Terhulpsesteenweg 6A Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
Phone: +32 2 658 56 52 Phone: +32 2 658 56 52
Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18
Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
Dimitri Papadimitriou Dimitri Papadimitriou
Senior R&D Engineer - Optical Networking Alcatel
Alcatel IPO-NSG
Francis Wellesplein 1, Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Mike Raftelis Mike Raftelis
White Rock Networks White Rock Networks
18111 Preston Road Suite 900 18111 Preston Road Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75252 Dallas, TX 75252
Phone: +1 (972)588-3728 Phone: +1 (972)588-3728
skipping to change at line 531 skipping to change at line 594
Email: yakov@juniper.net Email: yakov@juniper.net
Debanjan Saha Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4264 Phone: +1 732 923 4264
Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: dsaha@tellium.com Email: dsaha@tellium.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001
Vishal Sharma Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc. Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane 335 Elan Village Lane
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 943 1794 Phone: +1 408 943 1794
Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive 250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824 Chelmsford, MA 01824
Voice: +1 978 244 8143 Voice: +1 978 244 8143
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
Z. Bo Tang Z. Bo Tang
Tellium, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4231 Phone: +1 732 923 4231
Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: btang@tellium.com Email: btang@tellium.com
Eve Varma Eve Varma
skipping to change at line 574 skipping to change at line 637
Botterstraat 45 Botterstraat 45
Postbus 18 Postbus 18
1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands 1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands
Email: mvissers@lucent.com Email: mvissers@lucent.com
Yangguang Xu Yangguang Xu
21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street 21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845 North Andover, MA 01845
Email: xuyg@lucent.com Email: xuyg@lucent.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 11 E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 12
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/