One document matched: draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709-02.txt

Differences from draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709-01.txt


 



CCAMP Working Group                                     Khuzema Pithewan
Internet-Draft                                                 Rajan Rao
Intended status: Proposed Standard                  Ashok Kunjidhapatham
Expires: December 31, 2011                                       Biao Lu
                                                             Mohit Misra
                                                                Infinera
                                                              Lyndon Ong
                                                                   Ciena
                                                            Igor Bryskin
                                                                    Adva

                                                           June 29, 2011

      Signaling Extensions for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of
                    G.709 Optical Transport Networks
            draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709-02.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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


   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.





   Abstract

   As OTN network capabilities continue to evolve, there is an increased
   need to support GMPLS control for the same. [RFC4328] introduced
   GMPLS signaling extensions for supporting early version of G.709
   [G.709-v1].The basic routing considerations from signaling
   perspective is also specified in [RFC4328].

   The recent revision of ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G.709-v3] and
   [GSUP.43] have introduced new ODU containers (both fixed and
   flexible) and additional ODU multiplexing capabilities, enabling
   support for optimal service aggregation.

   This document extends [RFC4328] to provide GMPLS signaling support
   for the new OTN capabilities defined in [G.709-v3] and [GSUP.43]. The
   signaling extensions described in this document caters to ODU layer
   switching only. Optical Channel Layer switching considerations in
   [RFC4328] are not modified in this document.




















 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2. Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3. Requirements for supporting services over hierarchical OTN
      network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4. Overview of GMPLS Signaling Extensions for supporting 
      hierarchical OTN networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5. Extensions to G.709 Traffic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
      5.1. Usage of Bit_Rate and Tolerance for ODUflex Service . . . . 9
   6. New Generalized Label Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
      6.1 Multi-stage Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
      6.2. Label format for NVC or Multiplier > 1  . . . . . . . . .  11
   7. Usage of Multi-stage Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8. Label Distribution Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9. Interoperability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   13.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
      13.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
      13.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Author's Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix B : RFC4328 and G.709v3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23























 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


1. Introduction

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] extends
   MPLS from supporting Packet Switching Capable (PSC) interfaces and
   switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and 
   switching: Layer-2 Switching (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex (TDM),
   Lambda Switch (LSC), and Fiber-Switch (FSC) Capable. A functional
   description of the extensions to MPLS signaling that are needed to
   support these new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in
   [RFC3471].

   ITU-T Recommendations G.709 and G.872 provide specifications for OTN
   interface and network architecture respectively. As OTN network
   capabilities continue to evolve; there is an increased need to 
   support GMPLS control for the same.

   GMPLS signaling extensions to support [G.709-v1] OTN interfaces are
   specified in [RFC4328]. Further extensions are required to support
   the new capabilities introduced since [G.709-v1].  Following are the
   features added in OTN since the first version [G.709-v1].

   (a) OTU Containers:
       Pre-existing Containers: OTU1, OTU2 and OTU3
       New Containers introduced in [G.709-v3]: OTU2e and OTU4
       New Containers introduced in [GSUP.43]: OTU1e, OTU3e1 and OTU3e2

   (b) Fixed ODU Containers:
       Pre-existing Containers: ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3
       New Containers introduced in [G.709-v3]: ODU0, ODU2e and ODU4
       New Containers introduced in [GSUP.43]: ODU1e, ODU3e1 and ODU3e2

   (c) Flexible ODU Containers:
       ODUflex for CBR and GFP-F mapped services. ODUflex uses 'n'
       number of OPU Tributary Slots where 'n' is different from the
       number of OPU Tributary Slots used by the Fixed ODU Containers.

   (d) Tributary Slot Granularity:
       OPU2 and OPU3 support two Tributary Slot Granularities: (i)
       1.25Gbps and (ii) 2.5Gbps.

   (e) ODU Multiplexing Hierarchy:
       Multi-stage multiplexing of LO-ODUs into HO-ODU is supported.
       Also, multiplexing could be heterogeneous (meaning LO-ODUs of
       different rates can be multiplexed into the same HO-ODU). 

   OTN networks support switching at two layers: (i) ODU Layer - TDM
   Switching and (ii) OCH Layer - Lambda (LSC) Switching. The nodes on
   the network may support one or both the switching types. When
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


   multiple switching types are supported MLN based routing [RFC5339] is
   assumed.

   This document extends [RFC4328] to provide GMPLS signaling support
   for the new OTN capabilities defined in [G.709-v3] and [GSUP.43].
   This complies with the requirements outlined in the framework
   document [G.709-FRAME]. The signaling extensions described in this
   document caters to ODU layer switching only. Optical Channel Layer
   switching considerations in [RFC4328] are not modified in this
   document.

   Following are the extensions described in this document:

   (i) G.709 Traffic Parameters defined in [RFC4328] is extended to
   include Bit Rate (in bytes/second) and Tolerance (in ppm) fields for
   supporting ODUflex service.

   (ii) New Generalized Label Format is introduced to provide compact
   encoding of Tributary Slot information and support multi-stage ODU
   multiplexing.

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document is to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

   In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology used in ITU-T [G.709-v3], [G.872] and [GSUP.43], as well
   as [RFC4201] and [RFC4203].


3. Requirements for supporting services over hierarchical OTN network


   R1. Support signaling mechanism to instantiate ODUj service layer on 
       a ODUk link via single stage muxing.

       A ODUj LSP could involve zero (j=k) or one stage (j<k)
       multiplexing on a given ODUk link. Here both Contorl-plane and
       Data-plane entities are created for the ODUj service layer.

       ODUk link could be a point-to-point OTUk link or a H-LSP.

   R2. Support signaling mechanism to instantiate one or more      
       intermediate layers on a ODUk link in order to support the ODUj
       service layer. 

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       A ODUj LSP could involve two or more stage multiplexing on a
       given ODUk link. These intermediate layers can be implicitly
       created as a part of ODUj service LSP creation. In this case,
       both controlplane and dataplane entities will be created for the
       ODUj service layer. However, intermediate ODU layer(s)
       (implicitly created) will have dataplane representation only. 

   R3. Support signaling mechanism to instantiate ODUj service layer on
       a ODUk link where one or more intermediate ODU layers may be pre-
       existing.

       A ODUj LSP could involve two or more stage multiplexing on a
       given ODUk link. These intermediate layers may be pre-existing 
       as a result of another LSP creation on the same ODU hierarchy or
       explicitly configured through management interface. 

   R4. Support signaling mechanism where ODUj service LSP creation may 
       involve varying mux hierarchies on each hop 

       An end-to-end ODUj service LSP creation may involve zero or more
       stage ODU multiplexing on every hop in the path. Basically,the
       scenarios discussed in R1 to R3 could be associated with any of
       the hops involved.  

   R5. Support signaling mechanism for egress control of OTN interfaces 
       An egress interface of a ODUj LSP could involve single or
       multiple stage multiplexing. Egress Label sub-object defined in
       [RFC-4003] must be used to signal hierarchical multiplexing
       information pertaining to the egress interface of the LSP.   

   R6. Support signaling mechanism when ODUj service LSP creation 
       requires induced or manually created H-LSP.

4. Overview of GMPLS Signaling Extensions for supporting hierarchical
       OTN networks

       The GMPLS signaling extensions introduced in [RFC4328] cover OTN
       switching requirement pertaining to [G.709-v1].  The signaling
       objects defined in [RFC4328] need to be further extended to cover
       the new capabilities added to OTN since the first version of
       G.709 [G.709-v1]. A brief overview of the extensions required are
       captured below:

       (a) Support for the new ODU containers

       The new ODU containers added since [G.709-v1] are listed in the
       section-1. SignalType attribute defined in [RFC4328] need to be
       extended to cover the new signal types. This is captured in
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       [OSPF-EXTN-FOR-OTN].

       (b) Support for ODUflex

       Unlike the other ODUj signal types, ODUflex requires an user
       specified bit-rate (together with a Tolerance value) to be mapped
       to 'n' TSs of an higher-order container. Even within the same
       Tributary Slot Granularity, the Tributary Slot size varies among
       the ODU container of different rate. This results in ODUflex
       service of certain bit-rate and tolerance requiring different
       number of TSs on different higher order ODU containers. The
       present way of specifying bandwidth requirement (via NMC field in
       G.709 Traffic Parameters) will not work for ODUflex. G.709
       Traffic Parameters object need to be extended to include Bit-Rate
       (in bytes/sec) and Tolerance (in ppm) fields as well.

       (c) Support for ODU multiplexing hierarchy

       The G.709 Traffic Parameter and Generalized Label Format defined
       in [RFC4328] supports single stage multiplexing only. A new
       Generalized Label Format need to be introduced to support
       specification of multi-stage label.

               ODUk-------------------ODUj-------------------ODUh
                    TS/TPN for stage-1     TS/TPN for stage-2

                          Figure-1: Multi-stage Label

       (d) Support for different OPU Tributary Slot Granularities

       The G.709 Traffic Parameters and Generalized Label Format defined
       in [RFC4328] supports 2.5Gbps Tributary Slot Granularity only.
       With [G.709-v3], two types of tributary slots are supported -
       viz., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps. The Generalized Label Format need to
       be equipped with Tributary Slot Type indicator to facilitate
       interpretation of the encoded TS information.

       (e) Exchange of Tributary Port Number

       A Tributary Port Number (TPN) in MSI field of OPU-OH is used to
       correlate the TSs used for mapping a LO-ODU on a HO-ODU. This
       needs to be exchanged along with the Label such that each
       neighbor on a span knows the TPN value to expect for a given ODUj
       mapping. This applies to each stage associated with a multi-stage
       label. The Generalized Label Format needs to be extended to
       include TPN value for each stage of multiplexing.

5. Extensions to G.709 Traffic Parameters
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       G.709 Traffic Parameters defined in [RFC4328] is extended to
       include additional fields in support of ODUflex service as
       explained in the previous section. The modified object format is
       captured below:

           0                   1                   2                   3
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |  Signal Type  |   Reserved    |           NMC/Tolerance       |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |                            Bit_Rate                           |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Signal Type

       As explained in the previous section, Signal Type attribute needs
       to be extended to cover the new ODU containers defined in more
       recent G.709 specification [G.709-v3].

             Value     Type
             -----     ----
               4       ODU4 (100Gbps)
               5       ODU0 (1.25Gbps)
               10      ODUflex
               11      ODU1e (10Gbps Ethernet [GSUP.43])
               12      ODU2e (10Gbps Ethernet)
               13      ODU3e1 (40Gbps Ethernet [GSUP.43])
               14      ODU3e2 (40Gbps Ethernet [GSUP.43])
               15-255  Reserved (for future)

       NMC/Tolerance

       This field is redefined from the original definition in
       [RFC4328]. NMC field defined in [RFC4328] can not be fixed value
       for an end-to-end circuit involving dissimilar OTN link types.
       For example, ODU2e requires 9 TS on ODU3 and 8 TS on ODU4. Usage
       of NMC field is deprecated and should be used only with [RFC4328]
       generalized label format for backwards compatibility reasons.

       For the new generalized label format as defined in this document
       this field is interpreted as Tolerance. The unit of tolerance is
       ppm and is encoded as unsigned integer. For signal types other
       than ODUflex, Tolerance field should be coded as 0.

       Bit_Rate

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       Bit_Rate is used when signal Type is ODUFlex. For all the other
       signal types, this field should be coded as zero.

5.1. Usage of Bit_Rate and Tolerance for ODUflex Service

       Bit_Rate and Tolerance are used together to compute number of
       Tributary slots required for ODUFlex(CBR) traffic on a given
       higher order ODU container. The computation of Number of
       Tributary Slot (n) is as follows.

                      Ceiling of Bit_Rate * (1 + Tolerance)
         n =    --------------------------------------------------
              ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)

6. New Generalized Label Format

       As explained in section 3, the Generalized Label format defined
       in [RFC4328] can not accommodate the new features added in
       [G.709v3]. Further the label format as defined in [RFC4328] is
       not scalable for large number of Tributary Slots (at 1.25G
       granularity) associated with bigger containers such as ODU3 and
       ODU4.

       The Generalized Label for G.709 may contain one or more multi-
       stage Label.

6.1 Multi-stage Label

       A multi-stage label includes TS and TPN information for all the
       stages of a multi-stage multiplexing hierarchy.

       The format of a multi-stage label is explained below.
        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Num MUX Stages|  OD(T)Uk (ST) |           Reserved            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Tributary Slot Info (Stage-1)                |
       |                        (Variable Length)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              . . .                            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Tributary Slot Info (Stage-n)                |
       |                        (Variable Length)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       Num MUX Stages

       This field indicates the number of multiplexing stages specified
       by the label.

       OD(T)Uk

       This field encodes the signal type of HO OD(T)Uk container.

       Tributary Slot Info

       Tributary Slot Information for a single stage is encoded as
       follows.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    ODUj (ST)  | T |  Length   |      Tributary Port Number    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |        Variable Length Bit Map (4-byte boundary aligned)      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       ODUj

       This field indicates the signal type of a LO-ODU being
       multiplexed into its immediate HO-ODU.

       T

       This is a 2 bit field, which defines the granularity of tributary
       slots for this multiplexing stage. It can take following values

          T field      TS Granularity type
          -------      -------------------
            0          1.25Gbps
            1          2.5Gbps
            2-3        Reserved (for future use)



       Length

       This field indicates the number of valid Bits in the of Bit Map
       excluding the filler bits.

       Tributary Port Number(TPN)

       This field is encoded with TPN value assigned for a ODTUjk or
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       ODTUk.ts on a OPUk. TPN assignment could be fixed or flexible. 

       For fixed TPN assignment scheme, TPN value need not be specified.
       In this case, TPN value should be coded as 0xFFFFFFFF.

       For flexible TPN assignment scheme, TPN value should contain the
       assigned logical value. Not all the bits of TPN are used. Only a
       subset of bits are used depending on the ODTU type. 

       Bit Map

       This is a multi-byte bit map field. The length of this field
       varies depending on the number of TSs associated with the
       immediate HO-ODU pertaining to the stage. Each bit represents one
       TS. Bit values are interpreted as follows

             Bit Value      Meaning
             ---------      -------
                0            Not Used
                1            Used

       This field must be 4 byte aligned using filler bytes.


6.2. Label format for NVC or Multiplier > 1

       For NVC or Multiplier field value > 1, the label format defined
       in section 5 needs to be repeated NVC/multiplier times.

        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Label Instance #1                        |
       |                      (Variable Length)                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             |                                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Label Instance #n                        |
       |                     (n = NVC/Multiplier)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

7. Usage of Multi-stage Label 

       Multi-stage Label is needed when switching of an ODU Layer
       requires termination of more than one HO-ODUs on a given OTU/ODU
       Link. This eliminates the need for creating H-LSPs whose span
       matches its parent TE-Link.


 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       Example-1:

       Assume on an OTU3 Link, a restrictive MUX hierarchy (as shown in
       figure below) is supported on the associated interfaces. In order
       to switch ODU1 on this Link, ODU3 and ODU2 need to be terminated
       on the same span as the OTU3 link. If multi-stage Label is not
       supported, H-LSP need to be created for ODU3 and ODU2 layers (or
       just ODU2 layer at the minimum) inorder to support ODU1 LSP.
       Creation of ODU3 and ODU2 H-LSP on top of OTU3 Link on the same
       span is not really required as bandwidth management for all ODU
       layers can still be managed on the OTU3 Link itself. 

       Multi-stage Label helps in implicit creation of ODU3 and ODU2
       layers as part of ODU1 LSP setup and thus eliminates the need for
       the creation of the H-LSP on every hop. 



                                     ODU0
                                      |
                                     ODU1  ODU0
                                       \    /
                                        ODU2  
                                         |
                 ----------             ODU3            ----------
                 |        |              |              |        |
                 |  Node  |             OTU3            |  Node  |
                 |        |-----------------------------|        |
                 |   A    |                             |    B   |
                 |        |                             |        |
                 ----------                             ----------
                           |<----- OTU3 TE-Link ------->|


                 Label Format:  

                     Stage-1: ODU3<-ODU2/TPN/Trib Slots
                     Stage-2: ODU2<-ODU1/TPN/Trib Slots

                    Figure-2: Multi-stage Label on OTUk Link


       Example-2:

       Assume on an ODU3 H-LSP (B-C-D), signaling of ODU1 LSP requires
       termination of ODU2. Multi-stage Label helps in implicit creation
       of ODU2 layer as part of ODU1 LSP setup (A-B-D-E). 

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


                           ODU1              ODU1
                            |                 |
                           ODU2              ODU2
                            |                 |
                           ODU3              ODU3
                            |                 |
                           OTU3              OTU3
                           /                   \ 
       ------        -----/        ------       \------        ------
       |    |        |    |        |    |        |    |        |    |
       |Node|        |Node|        |Node|        |Node|        |Node|
       |    |--------|    |--------|    |--------|    |--------|    |
       |  A |        |  B |        |  C |        |  D |        |  E |
       |    |        |    |        |    |        |    |        |    |
       ------        ------        ------        ------        ------
            |<-OTU2->|    |<-OTU3->|    |<-OTU3->|    |<-OTU2->|
                          |                      |
                          |<-----ODU3 H-LSP----->|

                 Figure-3: Multi-stage Label on ODUk Link


       Note: Multi-stage Label is NOT intended to facilitate the
       creation of H-LSP or Hierarchical LSP. It is basically used to
       eliminate the need for H-LSP in some obvious scenarios. 


8. Label Distribution Rules

       This document does not change the existing label distribution
       procedures defined in [RFC4328] except that the new ODU label
       should be processed as follows.

       A. Sending Side

       When Generalized Label Request is received on given node for
       setting up an ODU LSP from its upstream neighbor, it reserves the
       bandwidth required for the ODU Layer being switched and also the
       terminating HO-ODUs layers involved. It sends upstream label and
       suggested label (if applicable) to the downstream node and
       downstream label via PATH Message and downstream label to the
       upstream node via RESV Message. 

       Note that Label can also be explicitly specified by source node.

       The encoding of Generalized Label is as follows:


 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       Case-1: ODUk mapping into OTUk
       Number of MUX stages = 0
       Tributary Slot information is not included. 

       Case-2: ODUj mux into ODUk
       Number of MUX Stages = 1. 
       Stage-1: Length = <number of TSs on ODUk>. 
                TPN = <specified as per Section 5>
                TS BitMap = <TSs reserved for ODUj are set to 1>

       Case-3 ODUh mux into ODUj into ODUk 
       Number of MUX Stages = 2. 
       Stage-1: Length = <number of TSs on ODUk>. 
                TPN = <specified as per Section 5>
                TS BitMap = <TSs reserved for ODUj are set to 1>
       Stage-2: Length = <number of TSs on ODUj>. 
                TPN = <specified as per Section 5>
                TS BitMap = <TSs reserved for ODUh are set to 1>

       B. Receiving Side

       The decoding of the Generalized Label is as follows:

       Case-1: ODUk mapping into OTUk
       For ODUk to OTUk mapping, the Tributary Slot Information is not
       expected.

       Case-2: ODUj mux into ODUk
       For ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, one MUX stage Label is expected.
       The node extracts the Bit Map field in Tributary Slot Info using
       the Length field. The position of Bit in the Bitmap interpreted
       as the Tributary Slot Number. The value stored in the bit
       indicates if it is reserved for the ODUj.

       Case-3: ODUh mux into ODUj into ODUk
       For ODUh mux into ODUj into ODUk, two MUX stage Label is
       expected. Each stage is further decoded as explained in case-2
       above.

9. Interoperability Considerations

       The neighbor nodes on a TE-Link span should exchange the
       signaling stack versions (via some link discovery mechanism) in
       order to determine the Generalized Label Format to use.  

       In the following example, Switch B and C are running the newer
       version of signaling stack (that support the new G.709 Traffic
       Parameters and Generalized Label Format) while Switch A is
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       running the older version. 

          +-------+               +-------+               +-------+ 
          | OTN   |               |  OTN  |               |  OTN  |
          |Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |
          |   A   |               |   B   |               |   C   |
          +-------+               +-------+               +-------+

                  |<-- Legacy -->|       |<-- New TE-Link -->|

                            Figure-4: OTUk TE-Link

       Link A-B: G.709-v1 version (2001) based OTUk link
       TSG: 2.5G;
       Label format: as per RFC 4328

       Link B-C: G.709-v3 version based OTUk link (12/09)
       TSG: 1.25G;
       Label format: new label format proposed in this draft. 

       For an ODU2 connection going from A-C,
       On link A-B :  NMC is set to 4 & [RFC4328] label format is used. 
       On link B-C :  NMC is not used & new label format is used. 

10. Examples

       Example-1 : ODUj LSP over OTUk Links

       Consider the network topology shown in the Figure-5 below:

       +-----+             +-----+             +-----+             +-----+
       | OTN |             | OTN |             | OTN |             | OTN |
       | SW  |<-OTU2 Link->| SW  |<-OTU3 Link->| SW  |<-OTU2 Link->| SW  |
       |  A  |             |  B  |             |  C  |             |  D  |
       +-----+             +-----+             +-----+             +-----+

                        Figure-5: OTN Signaling Example

       Assumptions:

       (1) ODU2 links between OTN-Switches A & B and C & D support
       1.25Gbps TS Granularity. 

       (2) ODU3 link between OTN-Switches B & C supports TS Granularity
       of 2.5Gbps only. Hence, ODU0 switching on this link is possible
       only through ODU3-ODU2-ODU0 or ODU3-ODU1-ODU0 multiplexing
       hierarchies.

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


       G.709 Traffic Parameters and Generalized Label for ODU0 LSP from
       node A to D is captured below:

       A. G.709 Traffic Parameters 
     Signal Type = ODU0
     NMC/Tolerance = 0    // NMC is not used. 
     NVC = 0
     Multiplier (MT) = 1
     Bit_Rate = 0







































 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


     B. Generalized Label Format:
          +=============+==============+==============+==============+
          |             |    A to B    |    B to C    |     C to D   |           
          +=============+==============+==============+==============+
          | # of Stages |       1      |       2      |       1      |           
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
          |   Stage-1   | ODU2<--ODU0  | ODU3<--ODU2  | ODU2<--ODU0  |
          |             | TSG = 1.25G  | TSG = 2.5G   | TSG = 1.25G  |
          |             | #TSs =  8    | #TSs = 16    | #TSs = 8     |
          |             | TPN = <1..8> | TPN = <1..4> | TPN = <1..8> |
          |             | BMap = 4bytes| BMap = 4bytes| BMap = 4bytes| 
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
          |   Stage-2   |     N/A      | ODU2<--ODU0  |     N/A      |
          |             |              | TSG = 1.25G  |              |
          |             |              | #TSs = 8     |              |
          |             |              | TPN = <1..8> |              |
          |             |              | BMap = 4bytes|              |
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
  Example 2: ODUj LSP over ODUk H-LSP

  Refer to Figure-3 in section 6. The G.709 Traffic Parameters and
  Generalized Label for ODU1 LSP from Node A to E is captured below:

     A. G.709 Traffic Parameters: 
          Signal Type = ODU1
          NMC/Tolerance = 0    // NMC is not used. 
          NVC = 0
          Multiplier (MT) = 1
          Bit_Rate = 0
     B. Generalized Label Format:
          +=============+==============+==============+==============+
          |             |    A to B    |    B to D    |     D to E   |           
          +=============+==============+==============+==============+
          | # of Stages |       1      |       2      |       1      |           
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
          |   Stage-1   | ODU2<--ODU1  | ODU3<--ODU2  | ODU2<--ODU1  |
          |             | TSG = 1.25G  | TSG = 2.5G   | TSG = 1.25G  |
          |             | #TSs =  8    | #TSs = 16    | #TSs = 8     |
          |             | TPN = <1..4> | TPN = <1..4> | TPN = <1..4> |
          |             | BMap = 4bytes| BMap = 4bytes| BMap = 4bytes| 
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
          |   Stage-2   |     N/A      | ODU2<--ODU1  |     N/A      |
          |             |              | TSG = 1.25G  |              |
          |             |              | #TSs = 8     |              |
          |             |              | TPN = <1..4> |              |
          |             |              | BMap = 4bytes|              |
          +-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


11. Security Considerations

          There are no additional security implications to Signaling
          protocol due to the extensions captured in this document.

12. IANA Considerations

          TBD

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

      [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
                Requirement Levels". 

      [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 
                (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630  

      [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
                (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
                January 2003.

      [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in 
                MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)" 

      [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of 
                Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)" 

      [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 
                4204, October 2005. 

      [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
                Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.

      [RFC5339]  Le Roux, JL. and D. Papadimitriou, "Evaluation of
                 Existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi-Layer and
                 Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC 5339, September
                 2008.

      [VCAT-LCAS] G. Bernstein (ed.), D. Caviglia, R. Rabbat and H. van
                  Helvoort, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) and
                  the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with
                  Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
                  draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-11.txt, 
                  March 09, 2011 

 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


      [G.709-v3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network 
                 (OTN)", G.709 Recommendation, December 2009. 

13.2.  Informative References

      [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
                (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

      [G.709-v1] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
                 (OTN)," G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February
                 2001 (October 2001).

      [G.872] ITU-T, "Architecture of optical transport networks", 
              November 2001 (11 2001). 

      [G.709-FRAME] F. Zhang, D. Li, H. Li, S. Belotti, "Framework for 
                    GMPLS and PCE Control of  G.709 Optical Transport 
                    Networks", draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-02, 
                    work in progress. 

      [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.  

      [OSPF-EXTN-FOR-OTN] S. Bardalai, R. Rao, A. Kunjidhapatham, 
                          K. Pithewan,  "OSPF TE Extensions for GMPLS
                          Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks", 
                          draft-ashok-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-02,
                          work in progress.


14. Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Lou Berger, Steve Balls and Radhakrishna
   Valiveti for review comments and suggestions.

Author's Addresses

      Khuzema Pithewan
      Infinera Corporation
      169, Java Drive
      Sunnyvale, CA-94089,  USA
      Email: kpithewan@infinera.com

      Mohit Misra
      Infinera Corporation
      169, Java Drive
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


      Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA
      Email: mmisra@infinera.com

      Rajan Rao
      Infinera Corporation
      169, Java Drive
      Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA
      Email: rrao@infinera.com

      Ashok Kunjidhapatham
      Infinera Corporation
      169, Java Drive
      Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA
      Email: akunjidhapatham@infinera.com

      Biao Lu
      Infinera Corporation
      169, Java Drive
      Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA
      Email: blu@infinera.com

      Lyndon Ong
      Ciena
      10480 Ridgeview Court
      Cupertino, CA 95014, USA
      EMail: lyong@ciena.com

      Igor Bryskin
      Adva Optical
      EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com




   Appendix A:  Abbreviations & Terminology



   A.1 Abbreviations:

         CBR          Constant Bit Rate
         GFP          Generic Framing Procedure
         HO-ODU       Higher Order ODU
         LSC          Lambda Switch Capable
         LSP          Label Switched Path
         LO-ODU       Lower Order ODU
         ISCD         Interface Switch Capability Descriptor 
         OCC          Optical Channel Carrier
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


         OCG          Optical Carrier Group
         OCh          Optical Channel (with full functionality)
         OChr         Optical Channel (with reduced functionality)
         ODTUG        Optical Date Tributary Unit Group
         ODU          Optical Channel Data Unit
         OMS          Optical Multiplex Section
         OMU          Optical Multiplex Unit
         OPS          Optical Physical Section
         OPU          Optical Channel Payload Unit
         OSC          Optical Supervisory Channel
         OTH          Optical Transport Hierarchy
         OTM          Optical Transport Module
         OTN          Optical Transport Network
         OTS          Optical Transmission Section
         OTU          Optical Channel Transport Unit
         OTUkV        Functionally Standardized OTUk
         SCSI         Switch Capability Specific Information 
         TDM          Time Division Multiplex
         TPN          Tributary Port Number
         TS           Tributary Slot or Time Slot 




   A.2 Terminology

   1. ODUk and ODUj

   ODUk refers to the ODU container that is directly mapped to an OTU
   container. ODUj refers to the lower order ODU container that is
   mapped to an higher order ODU container via multiplexing. 

   2. LO-ODU and HO-ODU

   LO-ODU refers to the ODU client layer of lower rate that is mapped to
   an ODU server layer of higher rate via multiplexing. HO-ODU refers to
   the ODU server layer of higher rate that supports mapping of one or
   more ODU client layers of lower rate. 

   In multi-stage multiplexing case, a given ODU layer can be a client
   for one stage (interpreted as LO-ODU) and at the same time server for
   another stage (interpreted as HO-ODU). In this case, the notion of
   LO-ODU and HO-ODU needs to be interpreted in a recursive manner. 





 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


                              ODU3   | (HO-ODU)
                                ^    |           
                                |    | Stage #1  
                                |    |
                  (HO-ODU) |  ODU2   | (LO-ODU)
                           |    ^
                  Stage #2 |    |
                           |    |
                  (LO-ODU) |  ODU1   | (HO-ODU)
                                ^    |
                                |    | Stage #3
                                |    |
                              ODU0   | (LO-ODU)

                     Figure-6 : LO-ODU and HO-ODU

   3. Single Stage Multiplexing When ODU multiplexing hierarchy involves
   only two levels (ODUk and ODUj), it is referred as single stage
   multiplexing.


                              ODU3    | Level-1
                                ^     |
                                |     |
                                |     |
                              ODU1    | Level-2

                   Figure-7: Single Stage Multiplexing

   4. Multi Stage Multiplexing When ODU multiplexing hierarchy involves
   more than two levels, it is referred as multi-stage multiplexing. Two
   adjoining levels form a multiplexing stage. 

                              ODU3   | Level-1
                                ^    |           
                                |    | Stage #1  
                                |    |
                   Level-2 |  ODU2   | Level-2
                           |    ^
                  Stage #2 |    |
                           |    |
                   Level-3 |  ODU1   | Level-3
                                ^    |
                                |    | Stage #3
                                |    |
                              ODU0   | Level-4

                     Figure-8 : Multi Stage Multiplexing
 


Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-sig-g709-02.txt   June 29, 2011


Appendix B : RFC4328 and G.709v3

   B.1 G.709 Traffic Parameters

   The G.709 Traffic Parameters defined in [RFC4328] does not work well
   for the new features introduced in [G.709-v3]. The basic draw-backs
   are:

   (a) NMC attribute defined in G.709 Traffic Parameters does not apply
   end-to-end especially when links with different TSG are involved in
   the path of a LSP. 

   (b) ODUflex needs absolute nominal rate and tolerance to be
   specified.

   B.2 Label Format

   The Label format defined in [RFC4328] is not scalable/extensible to
   cover the new ODU rates defined in [G.709-v3]. Some of the
   limitations are captured below:

   (a) The bit-fields defined to represent TSs for specific ODU rates
   are not future proof. The reserved bits are not sufficient to cover
   the future ODU types. 

   (b) The label format assumes 2.5G Tributary Slot Granularity. It
   needs to be redefined for 1.25G Tributary Slot Granularity. 

   (c) One Tributary Slot information is coded in 4 bytes. ODU3 and ODU4
   requires 32 and 80 TSs respectively. This would dramatically increase
   the label size and thus impact the scalability.  




















Khuzema, et al.        Expires December 31, 2011               [Page 23]

PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-24 09:11:07