One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Dan Li
Category: Informational Huawei
Han Li
CMCC
S.Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: October 22, 2010 April 22, 2010
Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
G.709 Optical Transport Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2010.
Abstract
This document provides a framework to allow the development of
protocol extensions to support Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) and Path Computation Element (PCE) control of
Optical Transport Networks (OTN) as specified in ITU-T Recommendation
G.709 as consented in October 2009.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Terminology..................................................3
3. G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN)........................4
3.1. OTN Layer Network.......................................4
4. Connection management in OTN................................10
4.1. Connection management of the ODU.......................10
5. GMPLS/PCE Implications......................................13
5.1. Implications for LSP Hierarchy with GMPLS TE...........13
5.2. Implications for GMPLS Signaling.......................13
5.2.1. Identifying OTN signals...........................13
5.2.2. Tributary Port Number.............................14
5.3. Implications for GMPLS Routing.........................15
5.3.1. Requirement for conveying Interface Switching
Capability specific information...................15
5.4. Implications for Link Management Protocol (LMP)........16
5.4.1. Correlating the Granularity of the TS.............16
5.4.2. Correlating the Supported LO ODU Signal Types.....16
5.5. Implications for Path Computation Elements.............17
6. Security Considerations.....................................17
7. IANA Considerations.........................................17
8. Acknowledgments.............................................17
9. References..................................................18
9.1. Normative References...................................18
9.2. Informative References.................................19
10. Authors' Addresses.........................................19
11. Contributors...............................................20
APPENDIX A: Description of LO ODU terminology and ODU connection
examples.......................................................21
1. Introduction
OTN has become a mainstream layer 1 technology for the transport
network. Operators want to introduce control plane capabilities based
on Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) to OTN networks,
to realize the benefits associated with a high-function control plane
(e.g., improved network resiliency, resource usage efficiency, etc.).
GMPLS extends MPLS to encompass time division multiplexing (TDM)
networks (e.g., SONET/SDH, PDH, and G.709 sub-lambda), lambda
switching optical networks, and spatial switching (e.g., incoming
port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). The GMPLS architecture is
provided in [RFC3945], signaling function and Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions are described in
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
[RFC3471] and [RFC3473], routing and OSPF extensions are described in
[RFC4202] and [RFC4203], and the Link Management Protocol (LMP) is
described in [RFC4204].
The GMPLS protocol suite including provision [RFC4328] provides the
mechanisms for basic GMPLS control of OTN networks based on the 2003
revision of the G.709 specification [G709-V1]. Later revisions of the
G.709 specification [G709-V3] have included some new features; for
example, various multiplexing structures, two types of Tributary
Slots (i.e., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps), and extension of the Optical Data
Unit (ODU) ODUj definition to include the ODUflex function.
This document reviews relevant aspects of OTN technology evolution
that affect the GMPLS control plane protocols and examines why and
how to update the mechanisms described in [RFC4328]. This document
additionally provides a framework for the GMPLS control of OTN
networks and includes a discussion of the implication for the use of
the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655].
For the purposes of the control plane the OTN can be considered as
being comprised of sub-wavelength (ODU) and wavelength (OCh) layers.
This document focuses on the control of the sub-wavelength layer,
with control of the wavelength layer considered out of the scope.
Please refer to [WSON-Frame] for further information about the
wavelength layer.
[Note: It is intended to align this draft with G.709 (consented in
10/2009), G.872 and G.8080 (planned for consent in 6/2010)]
2. Terminology
OTN: Optical Transport Network
ODU: Optical Channel Data Unit
OTU: Optical channel transport unit
OMS: Optical multiplex section
MSI: Multiplex Structure Identifier
TPN: Tributary Port Number
LO ODU: Lower Order ODU. The LO ODUj (j can be 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4,
Flex.) represents the container transporting a client of the OTN that
is either directly mapped into an OTUk (k = j) or multiplexed into a
server HO ODUk (k > j)container.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
HO ODU: Higher Order ODU. The HO ODUk (k can be 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4.)
represents the entity transporting a multiplex of LO ODUj tributary
signals in its OPUk area.
ODUflex: Flexible ODU. A flexible ODUk can have any bit rate and a
bit rate tolerance up to 100 ppm.
3. G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN)
This section provides an informative overview of those aspects of the
OTN impacting control plane protocols. This overview is based on the
ITU-T Recommendations that contain the normative definition of the
OTN. Technical details regarding OTN architecture and interfaces are
provided in the relevant ITU-T Recommendations.
Specifically, [ITU-T-G.872] describes the functional architecture of
optical transport networks providing optical signal transmission,
multiplexing, routing, supervision, performance assessment, and
network survivability. [G709-V1] defines the interfaces of the
optical transport network to be used within and between subnetworks
of the optical network. With the evolution and deployment of OTN
technology many new features have been specified in ITU-T
recommendations, including for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 and
ODUflex containers as described in [G709-V3].
3.1. OTN Layer Network
The simplified signal hierarchy of OTN is shown in Figure 1, which
illustrates the layers that are of interest to the control plane.
Other layers below OCh (e.g. Optical Transmission Section - OTS) are
not included in this Figure. The full signal hierarchy is provided in
[G709-V3].
Client signal
|
ODUj
|
OTU/OCh
OMS
Figure 1 Basic OTN signal hierarchy
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
Client signals are mapped into ODUj containers. These ODUj containers
are multiplexed onto the OTU/OCh. The individual OTU/OCh signals are
combined in the Optical Multiplex Section (OMS) using WDM
multiplexing, and this aggregated signal provides the link between
the nodes.
3.1.1 Client signal mapping
The client signals are mapped into a Low Order (LO) ODUj. Appendix A
gives more information about LO ODU.
The current values of j defined in [G709-V3] are: 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4,
Flex. The approximate bit rates of these signals are defined in
[G709-V3] and are reproduced in Tables 1 and 2.
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ODU Type | ODU nominal bit rate |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ODU0 | 1 244 160 kbits/s |
| ODU1 | 239/238 x 2 488 320 kbit/s |
| ODU2 | 239/237 x 9 953 280 kbit/s |
| ODU3 | 239/236 x 39 813 120 kbit/s |
| ODU4 | 239/227 x 99 532 800 kbit/s |
| ODU2e | 239/237 x 10 312 500 kbit/s |
| | |
| ODUflex for CBR | |
| Client signals | 239/238 x client signal bit rate |
| | |
| ODUflex for GFP-F | |
| Mapped client signal | Configured bit rate |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------+
Table 1 ODU types and bit rates
NOTE - The nominal ODUk rates are approximately: 2 498 775.126 kbit/s
(ODU1), 10 037 273.924 kbit/s (ODU2), 40 319 218.983 kbit/s (ODU3),
104 794 445.815 kbit/s (ODU4) and 10 399 525.316 kbit/s (ODU2e).
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| ODU Type | ODU bit-rate tolerance |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| ODU0 | +- 20 ppm |
| ODU1 | +- 20 ppm |
| ODU2 | +- 20 ppm |
| ODU3 | +- 20 ppm |
| ODU4 | +- 20 ppm |
| ODU2e | +- 100 ppm |
| | |
| ODUflex for CBR | |
| Client signals | client signal bit rate tolerance, |
| | with a maximum of+-100 ppm |
| | |
| ODUflex for GFP-F | |
| Mapped client | +- 20 ppm |
| signal | |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 2 ODU types and tolerance
One of two options are for mapping client signals into ODUflex
depending on the client signal type:
- Circuit clients are proportionally wrapped. Thus the bit rate and
tolerance are defined by the client signal.
- Packet clients are mapped using the Generic Framing Procedure
(GFP). [G709-V3] recommends that the bit rate should be set to an
integer multiplier of the High Order (HO) Optical Channel Physical
Unit (OPU) OPUk Tributary Slot (TS) rate, the tolerance should be +/-
20ppm, and the bit rate should be determined by the node that
performs the mapping.
3.1.1.1 ODUj types and parameters
When ODUj connections are setup, two types of information should be
conveyed in a connection request:
(a)End to end:
Client payload type (e.g. STM64; Ethernet etc.)
Bit rate and tolerance: Note for j = 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4 this
information may be carried as an enumerated type. For the ODUflex
the actual bit rate and tolerance must be provided.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
(b)Hop by hop:
TS assignment and port number carried by the Multiplex Structure
Identifier (MSI) bytes as described in section 3.1.2.
3.1.2 Multiplexing ODUj onto Links
The links between the switching nodes are provided by one or more
wavelengths. Each wavelength carries one OCh, which carries one OTU,
which carries one OPU. Since all of these signals have a 1:1:1
relationship, we only refer to the OTU for clarity. The ODUjs are
mapped into the Tributary Slots (TS) of the OTUk. Note that in the
case where j=k the ODUj is mapped into the OTU/OCh without
multiplexing.
The initial versions of G.709 [G709-V1] only provided a single TS
granularity, nominally 2.5Gb/s. Amendment 3 [G709-V3], approved in
2009, added an additional TS granularity, nominally 1.25Gb/s. The
number and type of TSs provided by each of the currently identified
OTUk is provided below:
2.5Gb/s 1.25Gb/s Nominal Bit rate
OTU1 1 2 2.5Gb/s
OTU2 4 8 10Gb/s
OTU3 16 32 40Gb/s
OTU4 -- 80 100Gb/s
To maintain backwards compatibility while providing the ability to
interconnect nodes that support 1.25Gb/s TS at one end of a link and
2.5Gb/s TS at the other, the 'new' equipment will fall back to the
use of a 2.5Gb/s TS if connected to legacy equipment. This
information is carried in band by the payload type.
The actual bit rate of the TS in an OTUk depends on the value of k.
Thus the number of TS occupied by an ODUj may vary depending on the
values of j and k. For example an ODU2e uses 9 TS in an OTU3 but
only 8 in an OTU4. Examples of the number of TS used for various
cases are provided below:
- ODU0 into ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 or ODU4 multiplexing with 1,25Gbps TS
granularity
o ODU0 occupies 1 of the 2, 8, 32 or 80 TS for ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 or
ODU4
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
- ODU1 into ODU2, ODU3 or ODU4 multiplexing with 1,25Gbps TS
granularity
o ODU1 occupies 2 of the 8, 32 or 80 TS for ODU2, ODU3 or ODU4
- ODU1 into ODU2, ODU3 multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity
o ODU1 occupies 1 of the 4 or 16 TS for ODU2 or ODU3
- ODU2 into ODU3 or ODU4 multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity
o ODU2 occupies 8 of the 32 or 80 TS for ODU3 or ODU4
- ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity
o ODU2 occupies 4 of the 16 TS for ODU3
- ODU3 into ODU4 multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity
o ODU3 occupies 31 of the 80 TS for ODU4
- ODUflex into ODU2, ODU3 or ODU4 multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS
granularity
o ODUflex occupies n of the 8, 32 or 80 TS for ODU2, ODU3 or ODU4
(n <= Total TS numbers of ODUk)
- ODU2e into ODU3 or ODU4 multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity
o ODU2e occupies 9 of the 32 TS for ODU3 or 8 of the 80 TS for
ODU4
In general the mapping of an ODUj (including ODUflex) into the OTUk
TSs is determined locally, and it can also be explicitly controlled
by a specific entity (e.g., head end, NMS) through Explicit Label
Control [RFC3473].
3.1.2.1 Link Parameters
Per [RFC4201], each OTU can be treated as a component link of a link
bundle. The available capacity between nodes is the sum of the
available capacity on the OTUs that interconnect the nodes. This
total capacity is represented as the capacity of a link bundle.
Note that there will typically be more than one OTU between a pair of
nodes so that the available capacity will typically be distributed
across multiple OTUs. Thus, in order to be able to determine the
maximum payload that can be carried on a bundled link, the link state
advertisement must also provide the largest number of TSes available
on any one component OTU.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
In order to compute the lowest cost path for a ODUj connection
request the critical parameters that need to be provided (for the
purposes of routing) are:
- Number of TS
- Maximum number of TS available for a LSP (i.e., Maximum LSP
Bandwidth)
- Bit rate of the TS. (Note: This may be efficiently encoded as a
two integers representing the value of k and the granularity.)
3.1.2.2 Tributary Port Number Assignment
When multiplexing an ODUj into a HO ODUk (k>j), G.709 specifies the
information that has to be transported in-band in order to allow for
correct demultiplexing. This information, known as Multiplex
Structure Information (MSI), is transported in the OPUk overhead and
is organized as a set of entries, with one entry for each HO ODUj
tributary slot. The information carried by each entry is:
Payload Type: the type of the transported payload
Tributary Port Number (TPN): the port number of the ODUj transported
by the HO ODUk. The TPN is the same for all the tributary slots
assigned to the transport of the same ODUj instance.
For example, an ODU2 carried by a HO ODU3 is described by 4 entries
in the OPU3 overhead when the Tributary Slot (TS) size is 2.5 Gbit/s,
and by 8 entries when the TS size is 1.25 Gbit/s.
The MSI information inserted in OPU3 overhead by the source of the HO
ODUk trail is checked by the sink of the HO ODUk trail. G.709
default behavior requires that the multiplexing structure of the HO
ODUk be provided by means of pre-provisioned MSI information, termed
expectedMSI. The sink of the HO ODU trail checks the complete
content of the MSI information (including the TPN) that was received
in-band, termed acceptedMSI, against the expectedMSI. If the
acceptedMSI is different from the expectedMSI, then the traffic is
dropped and a payload mismatch alarm is generated.
Note that the values of the TPN MUST be either agreed between the
source and the sink of the HO ODU trail either via control plane
signaling or provisioning by the management plane.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
4. Connection management in OTN
As [ITU-T-G.872] described, OTN-based transport network equipment is
concerned with control of connectivity of ODU paths and optical
channels and not with control of connectivity of the client layer.
This document focuses on the connection management of ODU paths. The
management of OCh paths is described in [WSON-FRAME].
Current [ITU-T-G.872] considers the ODU as a set of layers in the
same way as SDH has been modeled. However, recent progress within
the ITU-T on OTN architecture includes an agreement to update this
Recommendation to model the ODU as a single layer network with the
bit rate as a parameter of links and connections. This will allow the
links and nodes to be viewed in a single topology as a common set of
resources that are available to provide ODUj connections independent
of the value of j. Note that when the bit rate of ODUj is less than
the server bit rate, ODUj connections are supported by HO-ODU (which
has a one-to-one relationship with the OTU).
From an ITU-T perspective, the service layer is represented by the LO
ODU and the connection topology is represented by that of the server
layer; i.e., the OTU [corresponding to HO-ODU in case of multiplexing
or to LO-ODU in case of direct mapping] which has the same topology
as that of the OCh layer. The server layer topology is based on that
of the OTU, and could be provided by a point-to-point optical
connection, flexible optical connection that is fully in the optical
domain, flexible optical connection involving hybrid sub-
lambda/lambda nodes involving 3R, etc.
The HO-ODU/OTU and OCh layers should be visible in a single
topological representation of the network, and from a logical
perspective, the HO ODU/OTU and OCh may be considered as the same
logical, switchable entity.
The remainder of this document assumes that the revision of G.872
will be made. The document will be updated to keep it in line with
the new revision of G.872 when it is consented for publication.
4.1. Connection management of the ODU
LO ODUj can be either mapped into the OTUk signal (j = k), or
multiplexed with other LO ODUjs into an OTUk (j < k), and the OTUk is
mapped into an OCh. See Appendix A for more information.
From the perspective of control plane, there are two kinds of network
topology to be considered.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
(1) ODU layer
In this case, the ODU links are presented between adjacent OTN nodes,
which is illustrated in Figure 2. In this layer there are ODU links
with a variety of TSes available, and nodes that are ODXCs. Lo ODU
connections can be setup based on the network topology.
Link #5 +--+---+--+ Link #4
+--------------------------| |--------------------------+
| | ODXC | |
| +---------+ |
| Node E |
| |
+-++---+--+ +--+---+--+ +--+---+--+ +--+---+-++
| |Link #1 | |Link #2 | |Link #3 | |
| |--------| |--------| |--------| |
| ODXC | | ODXC | | ODXC | | ODXC |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Node A Node B Node C Node D
Figure 2 Example Topology for connection LO ODU connection management
If an ODUj connection is requested between Node C and Node E
routing/path computation must select a path that has the required
number of TS available and that offers the lowest cost. Signaling is
then invoked to set up the path and to provide the information (e.g.,
selected TS) required by each transit node to allow the configuration
of the ODUj to OTUk mapping (j = k) or multiplexing (j < k), and
demapping (j = k) or demultiplexing (j < k).
(2)ODU layer with OCh switching capability
In this case, the OTN nodes interconnect with wavelength switched
node (e.g., ROADM,OXC) that are capable of OCh switching, which is
illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. There are ODU layer and OCh
layer, so it is simply a MLN. OCh connections may be created on
demand, which is described in section 5.1.
In this case, an operator may choose to allow the underlined OCh
layer to be visible to the ODU routing/path computation process in
which case the topology would be as shown in Figure 4. In Figure 3
below, instead, a cloud representing OCH capable switching nodes is
represented. In Figure 3, the operator choice is to hide the real RWA
network topology.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
Node E
Link #5 +---------+ Link #4
+--------------------------| |-------------------------+
| ------ |
| // \\ |
| || || |
| | RWA domain | |
+-+-------+ +----+- || || ------+ +-------+-+
| | | \\ // | | |
| |Link #1 | -------- |Link #3 | |
| +--------+ | | +--------+ +
| ODXC | | ODXC +--------+ ODXC | | ODXC |
+---------+ +---------+Link #2 +---------+ +---------+
Node A Node B Node C Node D
Figure 3 RWA Hidden Topology for connection LO ODU connection management
Link #5 +---------+ Link #4
+--------------------------| |-------------------------+
| +----+ ODXC |----+ |
| +-++ +---------+ ++-+ |
| Node f + + Node E + + Node g |
| +-++ ++-+ |
| | +--+ | |
+-+-------+ +----+----+--| +--+-----+---+ +-------+-+
| |Link #1 | | +--+ | |Link #3 | |
| +--------+ | Node h | +--------+ +
| ODXC | | ODXC +--------+ ODXC | | ODXC |
+---------+ +---------+ Link #2+---------+ +---------+
Node A Node B Node C Node D
Figure 4 RWA Visible Topology for LO ODUj connection management
In Figure 4, the cloud of previous figure is substitute by the real
topology. The nodes f,g,h are nodes with OCH switching capability.
In the examples (i.e., Figure 3 and Figure 4), we have considered the
case in which LO-ODUj connections are supported by OCh connection,
and the case in which the supporting underlying connection can be
also made by a combination of HO-ODU/OCh connections.
In this case, the ODU routing/path selection process will request an
HO-ODU/OCh connection between node C to node E from the RWA domain.
The connection will appear at ODU level as a Forwarding Adjacency,
which will be used to create the ODU connection.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
5. GMPLS/PCE Implications
The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for extensions
of the current GMPLS protocol suite and the PCE applications and
protocols to encompass OTN enhancements and connection management.
5.1. Implications for LSP Hierarchy with GMPLS TE
The path computation for LO ODU connection request is based on the
topology of ODU layer, including OCh layer visibility.
The OTN path computation can be divided into two layers. One layer is
OCh/OTUk, the other is LO ODUj. [RFC4206] defines the mechanisms to
accomplish creating the hierarchy of LSPs. The LSP management of
multiple layers in OTN can follow the procedures defined in [RFC4206]
and related MLN drafts.
As discussed in section 4, the route path computation for OCh is in
the scope of WSON [WSON-Frame]. Therefore, this document only
considers ODU layer for LO ODU connection request.
5.2. Implications for GMPLS Signaling
The signaling function and Resource reSerVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions are described in [RFC3471] and [RFC
3473]. For OTN-specific control, [RFC4328] defines signaling
extensions to support G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control as
defined in [G709-V1].
As described in Section 2, [G709-V3] introduced some new features
that include the ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 and ODUflex containers. The
mechanisms defined in [RFC4328] do not support such new OTN features,
and protocol extensions will be necessary to allow them to be
controlled by a GMPLS control plane.
5.2.1. Identifying OTN signals
[RFC4328] defines the LSP Encoding Type, the Switching Type and the
Generalized Protocol Identifier (Generalized-PID) constituting the
common part of the Generalized Label Request. The G.709 Traffic
Parameters are also defined in [RFC4328]. The following new signal
types have been added since [RFC4328] was published:
(1)New signal types of sub-lambda layer
Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUj):
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
ODU0
ODU2e
ODU4
ODUflex
(2)A new Tributary Slot (TS) granularity (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)
(3)Signal type with variable bandwidth:
ODUflex has a variable bandwidth/bit rate BR and a bit rate
tolerance T. As described above the (node local) mapping process
must be aware of the bit rate and tolerance of the ODUj being
multiplexed in order to select the correct number of TS and the
fixed/variable stuffing bytes. Therefore, bit rate and bit rate
tolerance should be carried in the Traffic Parameter in the
signaling of connection setup request.
(4)Extended multiplexing hierarchy (For example, ODU0 into OTU2
multiplexing (with 1,25Gbps TS granularity).)
So the encoding provided in [RFC4328] needs to be extended to support
all the signal types and related mapping and multiplexing with all
kinds of tributary slots. Moreover, the extensions should consider
the extensibility to match future evolvement of OTN.
For item (1) and (3), new traffic parameters may need to be extended
in signaling message;
For item (2) and (4), new label should be defined to carry the exact
TS allocation information related to the extended multiplexing
hierarchy.
5.2.2. Tributary Port Number
The tributary port number may be assigned locally by the node at the
(traffic) ingress end of the link and in this case as described above
must be conveyed to the far end of the link as a "transparent"
parameter i.e. the control plane does not need to understand this
information. The TPN may also be assigned by the control plane as a
part of path computation.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
5.3. Implications for GMPLS Routing
The path computation process should select a suitable route for a
ODUj connection request. In order to compute the lowest cost path it
must evaluate the number (and availability) of tributary slots on
each candidate link. The routing protocol should be extended to
convey some information to represent ODU TE topology. As described
above the number of tributary slots (on a link bundle), the bandwidth
of the TS and the maximum number that are available to convey a
single ODUj must be provided.
GMPLS Routing [RFC4202] defines Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor of TDM which can be used for ODU. However, some other
issues should also be considered which are discussed below.
5.3.1. Requirement for conveying Interface Switching Capability specific
information
Interface Switching Capability Descriptors present a new constraint
for LSP path computation. [RFC4203] defines the switching capability
and related Maximum LSP Bandwidth and the Switching Capability
specific information. When the Switching Capability field is TDM the
Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP
Bandwidth, an indication whether the interface supports Standard or
Arbitrary SONET/SDH, and padding. So routing protocol should be
extended when TDM is ODU type to support representation of ODU
switching information.
As discussed in section 3.1.2, many different types of ODUj can be
multiplexed into the same OTUk. For example, both ODU0 and ODU1 may
be multiplexed into ODU2. An OTU link may support one or more types
of ODUj signals. The routing protocol should be extended to carry
this multiplexing capability. Furthermore, one type of ODUj can be
multiplexed to an OTUk using different tributary slot granularity.
For example, ODU1 can be multiplexed into ODU2 with either 2.5Gbps TS
granularity or 1.25G TS granularity. The routing protocol should be
extended to carry which TS granularity supported by the ODU interface.
Moreover, the bit rate (i.e., bandwidth) of TS can be determined by
the TS granularity and link type of the TE link. For example, the
bandwidth of a 1.25G TS without NJO (Negative Justification
Opportunity) in an OTU2 is about 1.249409620 Gbps, while the
bandwidth of a 1.25G TS without NJO in an OTU3 is about 1.254703729
Gbps. So The routing protocol should be extended to carry the TE link
type (OTUk/HO ODUk).
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
In OTN networks, it is simpler to use the number of Tributary Slots
for the bandwidth accounting. For example, Total bandwidth of the TE
link, Unreserved Bandwidth of the TE link and the Maximum LSP
Bandwidth can be accounted through the number of Tributary Slots
(e.g., the total number of the Tributary Slots of the TE link, the
unreserved Tributary Slots of the TE link, Maximum Tributary Slots
for an LSP). Thus, the routing protocol should be extended to carry
the Tributary Slots information related to bandwidth of the TE link.
5.4. Implications for Link Management Protocol (LMP)
As discussed in section 5.3, Path computation needs to know the
interface switching capability of links. The switching capability of
two ends of the link may be different, so the link capability of two
ends should be correlated.
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] provides a control plane
protocol for exchanging and correlating link capabilities.
It is not necessary to use LMP to correlate link-end capabilities if
the information is available from another source such as management
configuration or automatic discovery/negotiation within the data
plane.
Note that LO ODU type information can be, in principle, discovered by
routing. Since in certain case, routing is not present (e.g. UNI case)
we need to extend link management protocol capabilities to cover this
aspect. In case of routing presence, the discovering procedure by LMP
could also be optional.
5.4.1. Correlating the Granularity of the TS
As discussed in section 3.1.2, the two ends of a link may support
different TS granularity. In order to allow interconnection the node
with 1.25Gb/s granularity must fall back to 2.5Gb/s granularity.
Therefore, it is necessary for the two ends of a link to correlate
the granularity of the TS. This ensures that both ends of the link
advertise consistent capabilities (for routing) and ensures that
viable connections are established.
5.4.2. Correlating the Supported LO ODU Signal Types
Many new ODU signal types have been introduced [G709-V3], such as
ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex. It is possible that equipment does not
support all the LO ODU signal types introduced by those new standards
or drafts. If one end of a link can not support a certain LO ODU
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 16]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
signal type, the link cannot be selected to carry such type of LO ODU
connection.
Therefore, it is necessary for the two ends of an HO ODU link to
correlate which types of LO ODU can be supported by the link. After
correlating, the capability information can be flooded by IGP, so
that the correct path for an ODU connection can be calculated.
5.5. Implications for Path Computation Elements
[PCE-APS] describes the requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in
order to establish GMPLS LSP. PCE needs to consider the GMPLS TE
attributes appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a path
computation. The TE attributes which can be contained in the path
calculation request message from the PCC or the PCE defined in
[RFC5440] includes switching capability, encoding type, signal type,
etc.
As described in section 5.2.1, new signal types and new signals with
variable bandwidth information need to be carried in the extended
signaling message of path setup. For the same consideration, PCECP
also has a desire to be extended to carry the new signal type and
related variable bandwidth information when a PCC requests a path
computation.
6. Security Considerations
The use of control plane protocols for signaling, routing, and path
computation opens an OTN to security threats through attacks on those
protocols. The data plane technology for an OTN does not introduce
any specific vulnerabilities, and so the control plane may be secured
using the mechanisms defined for the protocols discussed.
For further details of the specific security measures refer to the
documents that define the protocols ([RFC3473], [RFC4203], [RFC4205],
[RFC4204], and [RFC5440]). [GMPLS-SEC] provides an overview of
security vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS
control plane.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes not requests for IANA action.
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Maarten Vissers for his review and useful
comments.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 17]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
[RFC4202] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4205] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4205, October 2005.
[RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC
4204, October 2005.
[RFC4206] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Ed., " Label Switched Paths
(LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
October 2005.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, JL. Le Roux, Ed.," Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009.
[G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709 Recommendation, December 2009.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 18]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
9.2. Informative References
[G709-V1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)," G.709 Recommendation, March 2003.
[ITU-T-G.872] ITU-T, "Architecture of optical transport networks",
November 2001 (11 2001).
[HZang00] H. Zang, J. Jue and B. Mukherjeee, "A review of routing
and wavelength assignment approaches for wavelength-
routed optical WDM networks", Optical Networks Magazine,
January 2000.
[WSON-FRAME] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS
and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON)", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework, work in
progress.
[PCE-APS] Tomohiro Otani, Kenichi Ogaki, Diego Caviglia, and Fatai
Zhang, "Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01.txt, July 2009.
[GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009.
10. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 19]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
Han Li
China Mobile Communications Corporation
53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053 P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-66006688
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6863033
Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it
11. Contributors
Jianrui Han
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972913
Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com
Malcolm Betts
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: malcolm.betts@huawei.com
Pietro Grandi
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6864930
Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it
Eve Varma
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 20]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
Alcatel-Lucent
1A-261, 600-700 Mountain Av
PO Box 636
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
USA
Email: eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com
APPENDIX A: Description of LO ODU terminology and ODU connection
examples.
This appendix provides a description of LO ODU terminology and ODU
connection examples. This section is not normative which is just a
reference in order to facilitate quicker understanding of text.
In order to transmit client signal, the LO ODU connection must be
created first. From the perspective of [G709-V3], there are two types
of LO ODU:
(1) A LO ODUj mapped into an OTUk. In this case, the server layer of
this LO ODU is an OTUk. For example, if a STM-16 signal is
encapsulated into ODU1, and then ODU1 is mapped into OTU1, the ODU1
is a LO ODU.
(2) A LO ODUj multiplexed into a HO ODUk (j < k) occupying several
TSs. In this case, the server layer of this LO ODU is a HO ODUk. For
example, if ODU1 is multiplexed into ODU2, and ODU2 is mapped into
OTU2, the ODU1 is LO ODU and ODU2 is HO ODU.
The LO ODUj represents the container transporting a client of the OTN
that is either directly mapped into an OTUk (k = j) or multiplexed
into a server HO ODUk (k > j)container. Consequently, the HO ODUk
represents the entity transporting a multiplex of LO ODUj tributary
signals in its OPUk area.
In the case of LO ODUj mapped into an OTUk (k = j) directly, Figure 5
give an example of this kind of LO ODU connection.
In Figure 5, The LO ODUj is switched at the intermediate ODXC node.
OCh and OTUk are associated with each other. From the viewpoint of
connection management, the management of OTUk is similar with OCh. LO
ODUj and OCh/OTUk have client/server relationships.
For example, one LO ODU1 connection can be setup between Node A and
Node C. This LO ODU1 connection is to be supported by OCh/OTU1
connections, which are to be set up between Node A and Node B and
between Node B and Node C. LO ODU1 can be mapped into OTU1 at Node A,
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 21]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
demapped from it in Node B, switched at Node B, and then mapped into
the next OTU1 and demapped from this OTU1 at Node C.
| LO ODUj |
+------------------------------(b)---------------------------+
| | OCh/OTUk | | OCh/OTUk | |
| +--------(a)---------+ +--------(a)---------+ |
| | | | | |
+------++-+ +--+---+--+ +-++------+
| |EO| |OE| |EO| |OE| |
| +--+----------------+--+ +--+----------------+--+ |
| ODXC | | ODXC | | ODXC |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Node A Node B Node C
Figure 5 Connection of LO ODUj (1)
In the case of LO ODUj multiplexing into HO ODUk, Figure 6 gives an
example of this kind of LO ODU connection.
In Figure 6, OCh, OTUk, HO ODUk are associated with each other. The
LO ODUj is multiplexed/de-multiplexed into/from the HO ODU at each
ODXC node and switched at each ODXC node (i.e. trib port to line port,
line card to line port, line port to trib port). From the viewpoint
of connection management, the management of these HO ODUk and OTUk
are similar to OCh. LO ODUj and OCh/OTUk/HO ODUk have client/server
relationships. when a LO ODU connection is setup, it will be using
the existing HO ODUk (/OTUk/OCh) connections which have been set up.
Those HO ODUk connections provide LO ODU links, of which the LO ODU
connection manager requests a link connection to support the LO ODU
connection.
For example, one HO ODU2 (/OTU2/OCh) connection can be setup between
Node A and Node B, another HO ODU3 (/OTU3/OCh) connection can be
setup between Node B and Node C. LO ODU1 can be generated at Node A,
switched to one of the 10G line ports and multiplexed into a HO ODU2
at Node A, demultiplexed from the HO ODU2 at Node B, switched at Node
B to one of the 40G line ports and multiplexed into HO ODU3 at Node B,
demultiplexed from HO ODU3 at Node C and switched to its LO ODU1
terminating port at Node C.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 22]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
| LO ODUj |
+----------------------------(b)-----------------------------+
| | OCh/OTUk/HO ODUk | | OCh/OTUk/HO ODUk | |
| +--------(c)---------+ +---------(c)--------+ |
| | | | | |
+------++-+ +--+---+--+ +-++------+
| |EO| |OE| |EO| |OE| |
| +--+----------------+--+ +--+----------------+--+ |
| ODXC | | ODXC | | ODXC |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Node A Node B Node C
Figure 6 Connection of LO ODUj (2)
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 23]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt April 2010
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Zhang, et al Expires October 2010 [Page 24]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 18:30:26 |