--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt 2006-02-04 22:56:53.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt 2006-02-04 22:56:53.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ - CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor + CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie - Editor (KPNQwest) Internet Draft - Expiration Date: June 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) + Expiration Date: October 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel) Ayan Banerjee (Calient) Lou Berger (Movaz) Greg Bernstein (Ciena) Angela Chiu (Celion) John Drake (Calient) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave) Michele Fontana (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Juergen Heiles(Siemens) @@ -24,42 +24,42 @@ Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Debanjan Saha (Tellium) Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) George Swallow (Cisco) Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) Eve Varma (Lucent) Maarten Vissers (Lucent) Yangguang Xu (Lucent) - December 2001 + April 2002 GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." E. Mannie Editor 1 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document is a companion to the GMPLS signaling extensions to control SONET and SDH document [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] that defines the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS @@ -96,22 +96,22 @@ signals (section 4), and per byte transparency (section 5). Section 6 gives examples of SONET/SDH traffic parameters (also referred to as signal coding) when requesting a SONET/SDH LSP. Such features are already implemented or under development by a significant number of manufacturers. For instance, arbitrary concatenation is already implemented in many legacy SONET and SDH equipment that don't support any byte-oriented protocol based control plane. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 2 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001 +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 2 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 This document doesn't specify how to implement these features in the transmission plane but how to control their usage with a GMPLS control plane. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals @@ -153,41 +153,50 @@ 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 +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 3 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + + A label for AUG-X and STSG-3*X is assigned following the same rule + as for the Standard Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET- + SDH]). + + A label for TUG-3 has K>0, L=0 and M=0. A label for VTG and TUG-2 + within a VC-3 has K=0, L>0, M=0. A label for TUG-2 within a VC-4 + has K>0, L>0, M=0. See [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] for KLM definition. 3. Contiguous Concatenation Extension This section defines the following optional extension flag for the Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]: Flag 2 (bit 2): Arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This flag allows an upstream node to signal to a downstream node that it supports arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This type of concatenation is not defined by ANSI or ITU-T. - Arbitrary contiguous concatenation allows the contiguous - 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 - concatenated signal to start at any location (AU-4/STS-1 timeslot) - in the STM-N/STS-N signal. + Arbitrary contiguous concatenation of VC-4/STS-1 SPE/STS-3c SPE + allows the contiguous concatenation of respectively 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 concatenated signal to start at + any location (AU-4/STS-1/STS-3 timeslot) in the STM-N/STS-N + signal. This flag can be setup together with Flag 1 (Standard Contiguous Concatenation) to give a choice to the downstream node. The resulting type of contiguous concatenation can be different at each hop according to the result of the negotiation. A label is assigned following the same rule as for the Standard Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]). 4. Virtual Concatenation Extension @@ -198,33 +207,33 @@ 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 + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 4 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + 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 @@ -254,27 +263,32 @@ network or within the transparent network; nor network deployment scenarios. The signaling is independent of these considerations. When the signaling is used between intermediate nodes it is up to a data plane profile or specification to indicate how transparency is effectively achieved in the data plane. When the signaling is used at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs it is up to the data plane specification to guarantee compliant behavior to G.707/T1.105 under fault free and fault conditions. +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 5 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed. Note that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete 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 + When an "extended" transparent STM-N/STS-M (M=1, 3, 12, 48, 192, + 768) is requested, the label is coded as for the case of + contiguous concatenation, i.e. it is in this case: S>0, U=0, K=0, + L=0, M=0. The different transparency extension flags are the following: Flag 3 (bit 3) : J0. Flag 4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3). Flag 5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12). Flag 6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156). Flag 7 (bit 7) : K1/K2. Flag 8 (bit 8) : E1. Flag 9 (bit 9) : F1. @@ -306,34 +320,34 @@ termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur between the B1 insertion point (RS/Section termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to the previous RS/Section frame content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the RS/Section overhead, modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the B1 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. If B2 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit error supervision functionality provided by the B2. The B2 contains + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 6 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + 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 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 difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case of B2 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means that a B2 bit error detection as described above performed after the transparent transport (at a MS/Line termination sink) indicates 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 the previous MS/Line frame content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the MS/Line overhead, modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the B2 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly. M1 and M1/M0 transparency are only meaningful when the B2 transparency is requested. 6. Examples @@ -349,48 +363,48 @@ 1. An STM-64 signal with RSOH and MSOH DCCs transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 4 and 5 to an STM-64 Elementary Signal. 2. An STS-192 signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-192 Elementary Signal. - 3. An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed by - the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with + 3. An STS-48 signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed by + the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 10 to an STS-48 Elementary Signal. - 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, - NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an - STS-768 Elementary Signal. + 4. An STS-768 signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is formed + by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with + value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an STS-768 + Elementary Signal. 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, MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal. +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 7 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + 6. A VC-4-3a signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 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 Signal. 7. An STS-1-34a SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 34, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 7 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001 - 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. 7. Acknowledgments Valuable comments and input were received from many people. 8. Security Considerations @@ -410,33 +424,33 @@ draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt, November 2001. [GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt, November 2001. [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH control", Internet Draft, - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt, December - 2001. + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt, April + 2002. [GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet - Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt, - November 2001. + Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt, + March 2002. + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 8 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 8 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-01.txt December, 2001 - 10. Authors Addresses Stefan Ansorge Alcatel Lorenzstrasse 10 70435 Stuttgart Germany Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44 Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de @@ -473,27 +487,28 @@ Angela Chiu Celion Networks One Sheila Drive, Suite 2 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658 Phone: +1 732 747 9987 Email: angela.chiu@celion.com John Drake Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 9 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972 3720 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 Axiowave Networks, Inc. 100 Nickerson Road Marlborough, MA 01752 Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627 Email: yfan@axiowave.com Michele Fontana Alcatel Via Trento 30, @@ -527,48 +542,55 @@ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Email: kireeti@juniper.net Jonathan P. Lang Calient Networks 25 Castilian Goleta, CA 93117 Email: jplang@calient.net Zhi-Wei Lin + Lucent 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 10 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + Phone: +1 732 949 5141 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 Tellabs Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com - Eric Mannie - EBONE + Eric Mannie Editor & Primary Point of Contact + KPNQwest Terhulpsesteenweg 6A 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium Phone: +32 2 658 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 - Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com + Email: eric.mannie@kpnqwest.com Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be + Dimitrios Pendarakis + Tellium + Phone: +1 (732) 923-4254 + Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com + Mike Raftelis White Rock Networks 18111 Preston Road Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75252 Phone: +1 (972)588-3728 Fax: +1 (972)588-3701 Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com Bala Rajagopalan Tellium, Inc. @@ -581,26 +603,27 @@ Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. Email: yakov@juniper.net Debanjan Saha Tellium Optical Systems 2 Crescent Place Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4264 + +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 11 + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-02.txt April, 2001 + Fax: +1 732 923 9804 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 Metanoia, Inc. 335 Elan Village Lane San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: +1 408 943 1794 Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive @@ -611,27 +634,30 @@ Z. Bo Tang Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4231 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: btang@tellium.com Eve Varma + Lucent 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Phone: +1 732 949 8559 Email: evarma@lucent.com Maarten Vissers + Lucent Botterstraat 45 Postbus 18 1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands Email: mvissers@lucent.com Yangguang Xu + Lucent 21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Email: xuyg@lucent.com -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 12 +E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 12