Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4328.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dimitri Papadimitriou | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 (Latest revision 2005-01-17) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4328 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alex D. Zinin | ||
| Send notices to | kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk |
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09
CCAMP Working Group D. Papadimitriou - Editor
Internet Draft (Alcatel)
Updates RFC 3471
Category: Standard Track
Expiration Date: June 2005 January 2005
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions
for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with RFC 3668.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document is a companion to the Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
signaling documents. It describes the technology specific
information needed to extend GMPLS signaling to control Optical
Transport Networks (OTN); it also includes the so-called pre-OTN
developments.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo ............................................. 1
Abstract ........................................................ 1
Table of Contents ............................................... 2
Conventions used in this Document ............................... 2
1. Introduction ................................................. 3
2. GMPLS Extensions for G.709 - Overview ........................ 3
3. Generalized Label Request .................................... 5
3.1 Common Part ................................................. 5
3.1.1. LSP Encoding Type ........................................ 5
3.1.2. Switching-Type ........................................... 6
3.1.3. Generalized-PID (G-PID) .................................. 6
3.2. G.709 Traffic-Parameters ................................... 7
3.2.1. Signal Type (ST).......................................... 8
3.2.2. Number of Multiplexed Components (NMC) ................... 9
3.2.3. Number of Virtual Components (NVC) ....................... 9
3.2.4. Multiplier (MT) .......................................... 9
3.2.5. Reserved Fields ......................................... 10
4. Generalized Label ........................................... 10
4.1. ODUk Label Space .......................................... 10
4.2. Label Distribution Rules .................................. 12
4.3. OCh Label Space ........................................... 13
5. Examples .................................................... 13
6. RSVP-TE Signaling Protocol Extensions ....................... 15
7. Security Considerations ..................................... 15
8. IANA Considerations ......................................... 15
9. Acknowledgments ............................................. 16
10. References ................................................. 17
10.1 Normative References ...................................... 17
10.2 Informative References .................................... 17
11. Contributors ............................................... 18
12. Editor's Address ........................................... 19
Appendix 1 - Abbreviations ..................................... 20
Appendix 2 - G.709 Indexes ..................................... 20
Intellectual Property Statement ................................ 22
Disclaimer of Validity ......................................... 22
Copyright Statement ............................................ 22
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 are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
terminology used in ITU-T [ITUT-G709] as well as [RFC3471], and
[RFC3473]. Abbreviations used in this document are detailed in
Appendix 1.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 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 needed to support these new
classes of interfaces and switching is provided in [RFC3471].
[RFC3473] describes the RSVP-TE specific formats and mechanisms
needed to support all four classes of interfaces.
This document presents the technology details that are specific to
G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTN) as specified in the ITU-T
G.709 recommendation [ITUT-G709] (and referenced documents),
including pre-OTN developments. Per [RFC3471], G.709 technology
specific parameters are carried through the signaling protocol in
dedicated traffic parameter objects.
The G.709 traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 3.2)
MUST be used when the label is encoded as defined in this
document. Moreover, the label MUST be encoded as defined in
Section 4 when these G.709 traffic parameters are used.
In the context of this memo, by pre-OTN developments, one refers
to Optical Channel, Digital Wrapper and Forward Error Correction
(FEC) solutions that are not fully G.709 compliant. Details
concerning pre-OTN Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) based solutions including
Optical Sections (OS), Regenerator Section (RS)/Section and
Multiplex Section (MS)/ Line overhead transparency are covered in
[RFC3946].
*** Note on ITU-T G.709 Recommendation ***
The views on the ITU-T G.709 OTN Recommendation presented in this
document are intentionally restricted to the GMPLS perspective
within the IETF CCAMP WG context. Hence, the objective of this
document is not to replicate the content of the ITU-T OTN
recommendations. Therefore, the reader interested in more details
concerning the corresponding technologies is strongly invited to
consult the corresponding ITU-T documents (also referenced in this
memo).
2. GMPLS Extensions for G.709 - Overview
[ITUT-G.709] defines several networking layers constituting the
optical transport hierarchy:
- with full functionality:
. Optical Transmission Section (OTS)
. Optical Multiplex Section (OMS)
. Optical Channel (OCh)
- with reduced functionality:
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
. Optical Physical Section (OPS)
. Optical Channel with reduced functionality (OChr)
It also defines two layers constituting the digital transport
hierarchy:
- Optical Channel Data Unit (OTUk)
- Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUk)
However, only the OCh and the ODUk layers are defined as switching
layers. Both OCh (but not OChr) and ODUk layers include the overhead
for supervision and management. The OCh overhead is transported in a
non-associated manner (also referred to as the non-associated
overhead naOH) in the Optical Transport Module (OTM) Overhead Signal
(OOS), together with the OTS and OMS non-associated overhead. The
OOS is transported via a dedicated wavelength referred to as the
Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC). It should be noticed that the
naOH is only functionally specified and as such open to vendor
specific solutions. The ODUk overhead is transported in an
associated manner as part of the digital ODUk frame.
As described in [ITUT-G709], in addition to the support of ODUk
mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3), G.709 supports ODUk multiplexing.
It refers to the multiplexing of ODUj (j = 1, 2) into an ODUk (k >
j) signal, in particular:
- ODU1 into ODU2 multiplexing
- ODU1 into ODU3 multiplexing
- ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing
- ODU1 and ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing
Adapting GMPLS to control G.709 OTN, can be achieved by creating:
- a Digital Path layer by extending the previously defined
"Digital Wrapper" in [RFC3471] corresponding to the ODUk
(digital) path layer.
- an Optical Path layer by extending the "Lambda" concept defined
in [RFC3471] to the OCh (optical) path layer.
- a label space structure by considering a tree whose root is an
OTUk signal and leaves the ODUj signals (k >= j); enabling to
identify the exact position of a particular ODUj signal in an
ODUk multiplexing structure.
Thus, the GMPLS signaling extensions for G.709 need to cover the
Generalized Label Request, the Generalized Label as well as the
specific technology dependent objects included in the so-called
traffic parameters as specified in [RFC3946] for SONET/SDH networks.
Moreover, since multiplexing in the digital domain (such as ODUk
multiplexing) has been specified in the amended version of the G.709
ITU-T recommendation (October 2001), this document also proposes a
label space definition suitable for that purpose. Notice also that
one uses the G.709 ODUk (i.e. Digital Path) and OCh (i.e. Optical
Path) layers directly in order to define the corresponding label
spaces.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
3. Generalized Label Request
The Generalized Label Request as defined in [RFC3471], includes a
common part (i.e. used for any switching technology) and a
technology dependent part (i.e. the traffic parameters). In this
section, both parts are extended to accommodate GMPLS Signaling to
the G.709 transport plane recommendation (see [ITUT-G709]).
3.1 Common Part
As defined in [RFC3471], the LSP Encoding Type, the Switching Type
and the Generalized Protocol Identifier (Generalized-PID) constitute
the common part of the Generalized Label Request. The encoding of
the RSVP-TE GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST object is specified in
[RFC3473] Section 2.1.
As mentioned above, this document extends the LSP Encoding Type, the
Switching Type and G-PID (Generalized-PID) values to accommodate
G.709 Recommendation [ITUT-G709].
3.1.1 LSP Encoding Type
Since G.709 Recommendation defines two networking layers (ODUk
layers and OCh layer), the LSP Encoding Type code-points can reflect
these two layers defined in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 as "Digital
Wrapper" and "Lambda" code. The LSP Encoding Type is specified per
networking layer or more precisely per group of functional
networking layer: the ODUk layers and the OCh layer.
Therefore, an additional LSP Encoding Type code-point for the G.709
Digital Path layer is defined that enlarges the existing "Digital
Wrapper" code-point defined in [RFC3471]. The former MUST be
generated when the interface or tunnel on which the traffic will be
transmitted supports G.709 compliant Digital Path layer encoding.
The latter MUST only be used for non-G.709 compliant Digital Wrapper
layer(s) encoding. A transit or an egress node (receiving a Path
message containing a GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST object) MUST generate
a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding"
indication, if the requested LSP Encoding Type cannot be supported
on the corresponding incoming interface.
In the same way, an additional LSP Encoding Type code-point for the
G.709 Optical Channel layer is defined that enlarges the existing
"Lambda" code-point defined in [RFC3471]. The former MUST be
generated when the interface or tunnel on which the traffic will be
transmitted supports G.709 compliant Optical Channel layer encoding.
The latter MUST only be used for non-G.709 compliant Lambda layer(s)
encoding. A transit or an egress node (receiving a Path message
containing a GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST object) MUST generate a
PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding"
indication, if the requested LSP Encoding Type cannot be supported
on the corresponding incoming interface.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Consequently, the following additional code-points for the LSP
Encoding Type are defined:
Value Type
----- ----
12 G.709 ODUk (Digital Path)
13 G.709 Optical Channel
Moreover, the code-point for the G.709 Optical Channel (OCh) layer
will indicate the requested capability of an end-system to use the
G.709 non-associated overhead (naOH) i.e. the OTM Overhead Signal
(OOS) multiplexed into the OTM-n.m interface signal.
3.1.2 Switching Type
The Switching Type indicates the type of switching that should be
performed at the termination of a particular link (see [GMPLS-RTG]).
No additional Switching Type values are to be considered in order to
accommodate G.709 switching types since an ODUk switching (and so
LSPs) belongs to the TDM class while an OCh switching (and so LSPs)
to the Lambda class (i.e. LSC).
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the value indicated
in the Switching Type field is supported on the corresponding
incoming interface. If the requested value can not be supported, the
node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/
Switching Type" indication.
3.1.3 Generalized-PID (G-PID)
The G-PID (16 bits field) as defined in [RFC3471], identifies the
payload carried by an LSP, i.e. an identifier of the client layer of
that LSP. This identifier is used by the endpoints of the G.709 LSP.
The G-PID can take one of the following values when the client
payload is transported over the Digital Path layer, in addition to
the payload identifiers defined in [RFC3471]:
- CBRa: asynchronous Constant Bit Rate i.e. mapping of STM-16/OC-
48, STM-64/OC-192 and STM-256/OC-768
- CBRb: bit synchronous Constant Bit Rate i.e. mapping of STM-
16/OC-48, STM-64/OC-192 and STM-256/OC-768
- ATM: mapping at 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps
- BSOT: non-specific client Bit Stream with Octet Timing i.e.
Mapping of 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps Bit Stream
- BSNT: non-specific client Bit Stream without Octet Timing i.e.
Mapping of 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps Bit Stream
- ODUk: transport of Digital Paths at 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps
- ESCON: Enterprise Systems Connection
- FICON: Fiber Connection
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
The G-PID can take one of the following values when the client
payload is transported over the Optical Channel layer, in addition
to the payload identifiers defined in [RFC3471]:
- CBR: Constant Bit Rate i.e. mapping of STM-16/OC-48, STM-64/OC-192
and STM-256/OC-768
- OTUk/OTUkV: transport of Digital Section at 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps
Also, when client payloads such as Ethernet MAC/PHY and IP/PPP are
encapsulated through the Generic Framing Procedure (GFP) as
described in ITU-T G.7041, dedicated G-PID values are defined.
In order to include pre-OTN developments, the G-PID field can take
one of the values (currently defined in [RFC3471]) when the
following client payloads are transported over a so-called lambda
LSP:
- Ethernet PHY (1 Gbps and 10 Gbps)
- Fiber Channel
The following table summarizes the G-PID with respect to the LSP
Encoding Type:
Value G-PID Type LSP Encoding Type
----- ---------- -----------------
47 G.709 ODUj G.709 ODUk (with k > j)
48 G.709 OTUk(v) G.709 OCh
ODUk mapped into OTUk(v)
49 CBR/CBRa G.709 ODUk, G.709 OCh
50 CBRb G.709 ODUk
51 BSOT G.709 ODUk
52 BSNT G.709 ODUk
53 IP/PPP (GFP) G.709 ODUk (and SDH)
54 Ethernet MAC (framed GFP) G.709 ODUk (and SDH)
55 Ethernet PHY (transparent GFP) G.709 ODUk (and SDH)
56 ESCON G.709 ODUk, Lambda, Fiber
57 FICON G.709 ODUk, Lambda, Fiber
58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUk, Lambda, Fiber
Note: Values 49 and 50 include mapping of SDH.
The following table summarizes the update of the G-PID values
defined in [RFC3471]:
Value G-PID Type LSP Encoding Type
----- ---------- -----------------
32 ATM Mapping SDH, G.709 ODUk
33 Ethernet PHY SDH, G.709 OCh, Lambda, Fiber
34 Sonet/SDH G.709 OCh, Lambda, Fiber
35 Reserved (SONET Dep.) G.709 OCh, Lambda, Fiber
3.2 G.709 Traffic Parameters
When G.709 Digital Path Layer or G.709 Optical Channel Layer is
specified in the LSP Encoding Type field, the information referred
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
to as technology dependent (or simply traffic parameters) is carried
additionally to the one included in the Generalized Label Request.
The G.709 traffic parameters are defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | Reserved | NMC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NVC | Multiplier (MT) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this frame, NMC stands for Number of Multiplexed Components, NVC
for Number of Virtual Components and MT for Multiplier. Each of
these fields is tailored to support G.709 LSP requests.
The RSVP-TE encoding of the G.709 traffic-parameters is detailed in
Section 6.
3.2.1 Signal Type (ST)
This field (8 bits) indicates the type of G.709 Elementary Signal
that comprises the requested LSP. The permitted values are:
Value Type
----- ----
0 Not significant
1 ODU1 (i.e. 2.5 Gbps)
2 ODU2 (i.e. 10 Gbps)
3 ODU3 (i.e. 40 Gbps)
4 Reserved (for future use)
5 Reserved (for future use)
6 OCh at 2.5 Gbps
7 OCh at 10 Gbps
8 OCh at 40 Gbps
9-255 Reserved (for future use)
The value of the Signal Type field depends on LSP Encoding Type
value defined in Section 3.1.1 and [RFC3471]:
- if the LSP Encoding Type value is the G.709 Digital Path layer
then the valid values are the ODUk signals (k = 1, 2 or 3)
- if the LSP Encoding Type value is the G.709 Optical Channel layer
then the valid values are the OCh at 2.5, 10 or 40 Gbps
- if the LSP Encoding Type is "Lambda" (which includes the
pre-OTN Optical Channel layer) then the valid value is irrelevant
(Signal Type = 0)
- if the LSP Encoding Type is "Digital Wrapper", then the valid
value is irrelevant (Signal Type = 0)
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Several transforms can be sequentially applied on the Elementary
Signal to build the Final Signal being actually requested for the
LSP. Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if
zero, except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and must be
ignored if equal to one. Transforms must be applied strictly in the
following order:
- First, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can
be optionally applied directly on the Elementary Signal to form a
Composed Signal
- Second, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or
on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the first
phase. The resulting signal is referred to as Final Signal.
3.2.2 Number of Multiplexed Components (NMC)
The NMC field (16 bits) indicates the number of ODU tributary slots
used by an ODUj when multiplexed into an ODUk (k > j) for the
requested LSP. This field is not applicable when an ODUk is mapped
into an OTUk and irrelevant at the Optical Channel layer. In both
cases, it MUST be set to zero (NMC = 0) when sent and should be
ignored when received.
When applied at the Digital Path layer, in particular for ODU2
connections multiplexed into one ODU3 payload, the NMC field
specifies the number of individual tributary slots (NMC = 4)
constituting the requested connection. These components are still
processed within the context of a single connection entity. For all
other currently defined multiplexing cases (see Section 2), the NMC
field is set to 1.
3.2.3 Number of Virtual Components (NVC)
The NVC field (16 bits) is dedicated to ODUk virtual concatenation
(i.e. ODUk Inverse Multiplexing) purposes. It indicates the number
of ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 Elementary Signals that are requested to be
virtually concatenated to form an ODUk-Xv signal. By definition,
these signals MUST be of the same type.
This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual
concatenation is requested.
Note that the current usage of this field only applies for G.709
ODUk LSPs i.e. values greater than zero, are only acceptable for
ODUk Signal Types. Therefore, it MUST be set to zero (NVC = 0), and
should be ignored when received, when a G.709 OCh LSP is requested.
3.2.4 Multiplier (MT)
The Multiplier field (16 bits) indicates the number of identical
Elementary Signals or Composed Signals requested for the LSP i.e.
that form the Final Signal. A Composed Signal is the resulting
signal from the application of the NMC and NVC fields to an
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
elementary Signal Type. GMPLS signaling currently implies that all
the Composed Signals must be part of the same LSP.
This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly
one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and egress
nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces on which
the LSP will be established can support the requested multiplier
value. If the requested values can not be supported, the receiver
node MUST generate a PathErr message (see Section 6).
Zero is an invalid value for the MT field. If received, the node
MUST generate a PathErr message (see Section 6).
3.2.5 Reserved Fields
The reserved fields (8 bits in row 1 and 32 bits in row 3) are
dedicated for future use. Reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero when
sent and MUST be ignored when received.
4. Generalized Label
This section describes the Generalized Label value space for Digital
Paths and Optical Channels. The Generalized Label is defined in
[RFC3471]. The format of the corresponding RSVP-TE GENERALIZED_LABEL
object is specified in [RFC3473] Section 2.2.
The label distribution rules detailed in Section 4.2 follow (when
applicable) the ones defined in [RFC3946].
4.1 ODUk Label Space
At the Digital Path layer (i.e. ODUk layers), G.709 defines three
different client payload bit rates. An Optical Data Unit (ODU) frame
has been defined for each of these bit rates. ODUk refers to the
frame at bit rate k, where k = 1 (for 2.5 Gbps), 2 (for 10 Gbps) or
3 (for 40 Gbps).
In addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk, the G.709
label space supports the sub-levels of ODUk multiplexing. ODUk
multiplexing refers to multiplexing of ODUj (j = 1, 2) into an ODUk
(k > j), in particular:
- ODU1 into ODU2 multiplexing
- ODU1 into ODU3 multiplexing
- ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing
- ODU1 and ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing
More precisely, ODUj into ODUk multiplexing (k > j) is defined when
an ODUj is multiplexed into an ODUk Tributary Unit Group (i.e. an
ODTUG constituted by ODU tributary slots) which is mapped into an
OPUk. The resulting OPUk is mapped into an ODUk and the ODUk is
mapped into an OTUk.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Therefore, the label space structure is a tree whose root is an OTUk
signal and leaves the ODUj signals (k >= j) that can be transported
via the tributary slots and switched between these slots. A G.709
Digital Path layer label identifies the exact position of a
particular ODUj signal in an ODUk multiplexing structure.
The G.709 Digital Path Layer label or ODUk label has the following
format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | t3 | t2 |t1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero when sent and SHOULD be ignored
when received.
The specification of the fields t1, t2 and t3 self-consistently
characterizes the ODUk label space. The value space for the t1, t2
and t3 fields is defined as follows:
1. t1 (1-bit):
- t1=1 indicates an ODU1 signal.
- t1 is not significant for the other ODUk signal types (i.e.
t1 value MUST be set to 0 and ignored).
2. t2 (3-bit):
- t2=1 indicates an ODU2 signal that is not further sub-
divided.
- t2=[2..5] indicates the tributary slot (t2th-2) used by the
ODU1 in an ODTUG2 mapped into an ODU2 (via OPU2).
- t2 is not significant for an ODU3 (i.e. t2 value MUST be
set to 0 and ignored).
3. t3 (6-bit):
- t3=1 indicates an ODU3 signal that is not further sub-
divided.
- t3=[2..17] indicates the tributary slot (t3th-1) used by the
ODU1 in an ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3).
- t3=[18..33] indicates the tributary slot (t3th-17) used by
the ODU2 in an ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3).
Note: in case of ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing, 4 labels are required
to identify the 4 tributary slots used by the ODU2; these tributary
time slots have to be allocated in ascending order.
If the label sub-field value t[i]=1 (i, j = 1, 2 or 3) and t[j]=0 (j
> i), the corresponding ODUk signal ODU[i] is directly mapped into
the corresponding OTUk signal (k=i). This is referred to as the
mapping of an ODUk signal into an OTUk of the same order. Therefore,
the numbering starts at 1; zero is used to indicate a non-
significant field. A label field equal to zero is an invalid value.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Examples:
- t3=0, t2=0, t1=1 indicates an ODU1 mapped into an OTU1
- t3=0, t2=1, t1=0 indicates an ODU2 mapped into an OTU2
- t3=1, t2=0, t1=0 indicates an ODU3 mapped into an OTU3
- t3=0, t2=3, t1=0 indicates the ODU1 in the second tributary slot
of the ODTUG2 mapped into an ODU2 (via OPU2) mapped into an OTU2
- t3=5, t2=0, t1=0 indicates the ODU1 in the fourth tributary slot
of the ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3) mapped into an OTU3
4.2 Label Distribution Rules
In case of ODUk in OTUk mapping, only one label can appear in the
Generalized Label. The unique label is encoded as a single 32 bit
label value (as defined in Section 4.1) of the GENERALIZED_LABEL
object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)
In case of ODUj in ODUk (k > j) multiplexing, the explicit ordered
list of the labels in the multiplex is given (this list can be
restricted to only one label when NMC = 1). Each label indicates a
component (ODUj tributary slot) of the multiplexed signal. The order
of the labels must reflect the order of the ODUj into the multiplex
(not the physical order of tributary slots). This ordered list of
labels is encoded as a sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined
in Section 4.1) of the GENERALIZED_LABEL object (Class-Num = 16, C-
Type = 2).
In case of ODUk virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of
all labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates a
component of the virtually concatenated signal. The order of the
labels must reflect the order of the ODUk to concatenate (not the
physical order of time-slots). This representation limits virtual
concatenation to remain within a single (component) link. In case of
multiplexed virtually concatenated signals, the first set of labels
indicates the components (ODUj tributary slots) of the first
virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates
the components (ODUj tributary slots) of the second virtually
concatenated signal, and so on. This ordered list of labels is
encoded as a sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined in Section
4.1) of the GENERALIZED_LABEL object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2).
In case of ODUk virtual concatenation, the number of label values is
determined by the NVC value. Multiplexed ODUk virtual concatenation
additionally uses the NMC value to determine the number of labels
per set (equal in size).
In case of multiplication (i.e. when using the MT field), the
explicit ordered list of all labels taking part in the composed
signal is given. The above representation limits multiplication to
remain within a single (component) link. In case of multiplication
of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals, the first set of
labels indicates the components of the first multiplexed virtually
concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates components
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated signal, and so on.
This ordered list of labels is encoded as a sequence of 32 bit label
values (as defined in Section 4.1) of the GENERALIZED_LABEL object
(Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2). In case of multiplication of (equal)
ODUk virtual concatenated signals, the number of label values per
signal is determined by the NVC value. Multiplication of multiplexed
(equal) ODUk virtual concatenation additionally uses the NMC value
to determine the number of labels per set (equal in size).
4.3 Optical Channel Label Space
At the Optical Channel layer, the label space must be consistently
defined as a flat space whose values reflect the local assignment of
OCh identifiers corresponding to the OTM-n.m sub-interface signals
(m = 1, 2 or 3). Note that these identifiers do not cover OChr since
the corresponding Connection Function (OChr-CF) between OTM-
nr.m/OTM-0r.m is not defined in [ITUT-G798].
The OCh label space values are defined by either absolute values
(i.e. channel identifiers or Channel ID also referred to as
wavelength identifiers) or relative values (channel spacing also
referred to as inter-wavelength spacing). The latter is strictly
confined to a per-port label space while the former could be defined
as a local or a global (per node) label space. Such an OCh label
space is applicable to both OTN Optical Channel layer and pre-OTN
Optical Channel layer.
Optical Channel label encoding (and distribution) rules are defined
in [RFC3471]. They MUST be used for the Upstream Label, the
Suggested Label and the Generalized Label.
5. Examples
The following examples are given in order to illustrate the
processing described in the previous sections of this document.
1. ODUk in OTUk mapping: when one ODU1 (ODU2 or ODU3) signal is
directly transported in an OTU1 (OTU2 or OTU3), the upstream node
requests results simply in an ODU1 (ODU2 or ODU3) signal request.
In such conditions, the downstream node has to return a unique
label since the ODU1 (ODU2 or ODU3) is directly mapped into the
corresponding OTU1 (OTU2 or OTU3). Since a single ODUk signal is
requested (Signal Type = 1, 2 or 3), the downstream node has to
return a single ODUk label which can be for instance one of the
following when the Signal Type = 1:
- t3=0, t2=0, t1=1 indicating a single ODU1 mapped into an OTU1
- t3=0, t2=1, t1=0 indicating a single ODU2 mapped into an OTU2
- t3=1, t2=0, t1=0 indicating a single ODU3 mapped into an OTU3
2. ODU1 into ODUk multiplexing (k > 1): when one ODU1 is multiplexed
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
into the payload of a structured ODU2 (or ODU3), the upstream
node requests results simply in a ODU1 signal request.
In such conditions, the downstream node has to return a unique
label since the ODU1 is multiplexed into one ODTUG2 (or ODTUG3).
The latter is then mapped into the ODU2 (or ODU3) via OPU2 (or
OPU3) and then mapped into the corresponding OTU2 (or OTU3).
Since a single ODU1 multiplexed signal is requested (Signal Type
= 1 and NMC = 1), the downstream node has to return a single ODU1
label which can take for instance one of the following values:
- t3=0,t2=4,t1=0 indicates the ODU1 in the third TS of the ODTUG2
- t3=2,t2=0,t1=0 indicates the ODU1 in the first TS of the ODTUG3
- t3=7,t2=0,t1=0 indicates the ODU1 in the sixth TS of the ODTUG3
3. ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing: when one unstructured ODU2 is
multiplexed into the payload of a structured ODU3, the upstream
node requests results simply in a ODU2 signal request.
In such conditions, the downstream node has to return four labels
since the ODU2 is multiplexed into one ODTUG3. The latter is
mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3) and then mapped into an OTU3.
Since an ODU2 multiplexed signal is requested (Signal Type = 2,
and NMC = 4), the downstream node has to return four ODU labels
which can take for instance the following values:
- t3=18, t2=0, t1=0 (first part of ODU2 in first TS of ODTUG3)
- t3=22, t2=0, t1=0 (second part of ODU2 in fifth TS of ODTUG3)
- t3=23, t2=0, t1=0 (third part of ODU2 in sixth TS of ODTUG3)
- t3=26, t2=0, t1=0 (fourth part of ODU2 in ninth TS of ODTUG3)
4. When a single OCh signal of 40 Gbps is requested (Signal Type =
8), the downstream node must return a single wavelength
label as specified in [RFC3471].
5. When requesting multiple ODUk LSP (i.e. with a multiplier (MT)
value > 1), an explicit list of labels is returned to the
requestor node.
When the downstream node receives a request for a 4 x ODU1 signal
(Signal Type = 1, NMC = 1 and MT = 4) multiplexed into a ODU3, it
returns an ordered list of four labels to the upstream node: the
first ODU1 label corresponding to the first signal of the LSP,
the second ODU1 label corresponding to the second signal of the
LSP, etc. For instance, the corresponding labels can take the
following values:
- First ODU1: t3=2, t2=0, t1=0 (in first TS of ODTUG3)
- Second ODU1: t3=10, t2=0, t1=0 (in ninth TS of ODTUG3)
- Third ODU1: t3=7, t2=0, t1=0 (in sixth TS of ODTUG3)
- Fourth ODU1: t3=6, t2=0, t1=0 (in fifth TS of ODTUG3)
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
6. RSVP-TE Signaling Protocol Extensions
This section specifies the [RFC3473] protocol extensions needed to
accommodate G.709 traffic parameters.
The G.709 traffic parameters are carried in the G.709 SENDER_TSPEC
and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is used both for
SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The content of the
objects is defined above in Section 3.2. The objects have the
following class and type for G.709:
- G.709 SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA
- G.709 FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA
There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC.
Either the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the
Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service
fragment is used, see [RFC2210].
For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC
object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the
contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding
Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with
a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be
generated.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
the requested Signal Type, NMC and NVC values (as defined in
Section 3.2). If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the
receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic
Control Error/Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).
In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control
Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).
7. Security Considerations
This draft introduces no new security considerations to [RFC3473].
8. IANA Considerations
Two values have to be defined by IANA for this document:
Two RSVP C-Types in registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
- A G.709 SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 5
(Suggested value, TBA) - see Section 6.
- A G.709 FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 5
(Suggested value, TBA) - see Section 6.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
IANA is also requested to track the code-point spaces extended
and/or updated by this document. For this purpose, the following
new registry entries are requested in the newly requested registry
entry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls
- LSP Encoding Type:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls/lsp-encoding-type
Name: LSP Encoding Type
Format: 8-bit number
Values:
[1..11] defined in [RFC3471]
12 defined in Section 3.1.1
13 defined in Section 3.1.1
Allocation Policy:
[0..239] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
[240..255] Assigned temporarily for Experimental Usage.
these will not be registered with IANA
- Switching Type:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls/switching-type
Name: Switching Type
Format: 8-bit number
Values: defined in [RFC3471]
Allocation Policy:
[0..255] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
- Generalized PID (G-PID):
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls/generalized-pid
Name: G-PID
Format: 16-bit number
Values:
[0..31] defined in [RFC3471]
[32..35] defined in [RFC3471] and updated by Section
3.1.3
[36..46] defined in [RFC3471]
[47..58] defined in Section 3.1.3
Allocation Policy:
[0..31743] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
[31744..32767] Assigned temporarily for Experimental Usage
[32768..65535] Not assigned. Before any assignments can be
made in this range, there MUST be a Standards
Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations
that covers the range being assigned.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jean-Loup Ferrant, Mathieu Garnot,
Massimo Canali, Germano Gasparini and Fong Liaw for their
constructive comments and inputs as well as James Fu, Siva
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Sankaranarayanan and Yangguang Xu for their useful feedback. Many
thanks to Adrian Farrel for having thoroughly reviewing this
document.
This draft incorporates (upon agreement) material and ideas from
draft-lin-ccamp-ipo-common-label-request-00.txt.
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS," Internet Draft (work in
progress), draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt,
October 2003.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification," RFC
2205, September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D. et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels," RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling -
Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions," RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3946] Mannie, E. and Papadimitriou, D. (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control," RFC 3946, October 2004.
10.2 Informative References
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
[RFC3945] Mannie, E. (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture," RFC 3945,
October 2004.
For information on the availability of the following documents,
please see http://www.itu.int
[ITUT-G707] ITU-T, "Network node interface for the synchronous
digital hierarchy (SDH)," G.707 Recommendation, October
2000.
[ITUT-G709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)," G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1),
February 2001 (October 2001).
[ITUT-G798] ITU-T, "Characteristics of Optical Transport Network
Hierarchy Equipment Functional Blocks," G.798
Recommendation, October 2001.
11. Contributors
Alberto Bellato (Alcatel)
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Email: alberto.bellato@alcatel.it
Sudheer Dharanikota (Consult)
Email: sudheer@ieee.org
Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Email: michele.fontana@alcatel.it
Nasir Ghani (Sorrento Networks)
9990 Mesa Rim Road,
San Diego, CA 92121, USA
Email: nghani@sorrentonet.com
Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Lorenzstrasse, 10,
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.de
Dan Guo (Turin Networks)
1415 N. McDowell Blvd,
Petaluma, CA 94954, USA
Email: dguo@turinnetworks.com
Juergen Heiles (Siemens)
Hofmannstr. 51,
D-81379 Munich, Germany
Email: juergen.heiles@siemens.com
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Jim Jones (Alcatel)
3400 W. Plano Parkway,
Plano, TX 75075, USA
Email: jim.d.jones@alcatel.com
Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Rm 3C-512
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733-3030, USA
Email: zwlin@lucent.com
Eric Mannie (Consult)
Email: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Maarten Vissers (Alcatel)
Lorenzstrasse, 10,
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Email: maarten.vissers@alcalel.de
Yong Xue (WorldCom)
22001 Loudoun County Parkway,
Ashburn, VA 20147, USA
Email: yong.xue@wcom.com
12. Editor's Address
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Appendix 1 - Abbreviations
BSNT Bit Stream without Octet Timing
BSOT Bit Stream with Octet Timing
CBR Constant Bit Rate
ESCON Enterprise Systems Connection
FC Fiber Channel
FEC Forward Error Correction
FICON Fiber Connection
FSC Fiber Switch Capable
GCC General Communication Channel
GFP Generic Framing Procedure
LSC Lambda Switch Capable
LSP Label Switched Path
MS Multiplex Section
naOH non-associated Overhead
NMC Number of Multiplexed Components
NVC Number of Virtual Components
OCC Optical Channel Carrier
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
OH Overhead
OMS Optical Multiplex Section
OMU Optical Multiplex Unit
OOS OTM Overhead Signal
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
PPP Point to Point Protocol
PSC Packet Switch Capable
RES Reserved
RS Regenerator Section
TTI Trail Trace Identifier
TDM Time Division Multiplex
Appendix 2 - G.709 Indexes
- Index k: The index "k" is used to represent a supported bit rate
and the different versions of OPUk, ODUk and OTUk. k=1 represents an
approximate bit rate of 2.5 Gbit/s, k=2 represents an approximate
bit rate of 10 Gbit/s, k = 3 an approximate bit rate of 40 Gbit/s
and k = 4 an approximate bit rate of 160 Gbit/s (under definition).
The exact bit-rate values are in kbits/s:
. OPU: k=1: 2 488 320.000, k=2: 9 995 276.962, k=3: 40 150 519.322
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
. ODU: k=1: 2 498 775.126, k=2: 10 037 273.924, k=3: 40 319 218.983
. OTU: k=1: 2 666 057.143, k=2: 10 709 225.316, k=3: 43 018 413.559
- Index m: The index "m" is used to represent the bit rate or set of
bit rates supported on the interface. This is a one or more digit
"k", where each "k" represents a particular bit rate. The valid
values for m are (1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 123).
- Index n: The index "n" is used to represent the order of the OTM,
OTS, OMS, OPS, OCG and OMU. This index represents the maximum number
of wavelengths that can be supported at the lowest bit rate
supported on the wavelength. It is possible that a reduced number of
higher bit rate wavelengths are supported. The case n=0 represents a
single channel without a specific wavelength assigned to the
channel.
- Index r: The index "r", if present, is used to indicate a reduced
functionality OTM, OCG, OCC and OCh (non-associated overhead is not
supported). Note that for n=0 the index r is not required as it
implies always reduced functionality.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 21
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-09.txt January 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF 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 this 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.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR 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
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. - Expires June 2005 22