Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03
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 4209.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Andre N. Fredette , Jonathan Lang | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 (Latest revision 2003-12-16) | ||
| 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 4209 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Bert Wijnen | ||
| Send notices to | <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <kireeti@juniper.net> |
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03
Network Working Group A. Fredette, Editor
Internet Draft (Hatteras Networks)
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: June 2004 J. Lang, Editor
(Rincon Networks)
December 2003
Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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.
Abstract
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is defined to manage traffic
engineering (TE) links. In its present form, LMP focuses on peer
nodes; i.e., nodes that peer in signaling and/or routing. In this
document we propose extensions to LMP to allow it to be used between
a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS). These
extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface
Requirements" described in a companion document.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
[Editor's note: "Changes from previous version" notes can be removed
prior to publication as an RFC.]
Changes from previous version:
o Modified the IANA Considerations section as a result of IESG
review.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
1. Introduction
Networks are being developed with routers, switches, optical cross-
connects (OXCs), dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM)
optical line systems (OLSs), and add-drop multiplexors (ADMs) that
use a common control plane [e.g., Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)] to
dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability
using protection and restoration techniques.
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is being developed as part of the
GMPLS protocol suite to manage traffic engineering (TE) links [LMP].
In its present form, LMP focuses on peer nodes; i.e., nodes that
peer in signaling and/or routing (e.g., OXC-to-OXC, as illustrated
in Figure 1). In this document, extensions to LMP to allow it to be
used between a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS)
are proposed. These extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical
Link Interface Requirements" described in [OLI]. It is assumed that
the reader is familiar with LMP as defined in [LMP].
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
| OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^
| |
+---------------------LMP---------------------+
Figure 1: LMP Model
Consider two peer nodes (e.g., two OXCs) interconnected by a
wavelength-multiplexed link; i.e., a DWDM optical link (see Figure 1
above). Information about the configuration of this link and its
current state is known by the two OLSs (OLS1 and OLS2), and allowing
them to communicate this information to the corresponding peer nodes
(OXC1 and OXC2) via LMP can improve network usability by reducing
required manual configuration and by enhancing fault detection and
recovery.
Information about the state of LSPs using the DWDM optical link is
known by the peer nodes (OXC1 and OXC2), and allowing them to
communicate this information to the corresponding OLSs (OLS1 and
OLS2) is useful for alarm management and link monitoring. Alarm
management is important because the administrative state of an LSP,
known to the peer nodes (e.g., via the Admin Status object of GMPLS
signaling [GMPLS-SIG]) can be used to suppress spurious alarm
reporting from the OLSs.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
The model for extending LMP to OLSs is shown in Figure 2.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
| OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | |
| +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ |
| |
+----------------------LMP-----------------------+
Figure 2: Extended LMP Model
In this model, a peer node may have LMP sessions with adjacent OLSs
as well as adjacent peer nodes. In Figure 2, for example, the OXC1-
OXC2 LMP session can be used to build traffic-engineering (TE) links
for GMPLS signaling and routing, as described in [LMP]. The OXC1-
OLS1 and the OXC2-OLS2 LMP sessions are used to exchange information
about the configuration of the DWDM optical link and its current
state and information about the state of LSPs using that link.
The latter type of LMP sessions is discussed in this document. It is
important to note that a peer node may have LMP sessions with one or
more OLSs and an OLS may have LMP sessions with one or more peer
nodes.
Although there are many similarities between an LMP session between
two peer nodes and an LMP session between a peer node and an OLS,
there are some differences as well. The former type of LMP session
is used to provide the basis for GMPLS signaling and routing. The
latter type of LMP session is used to augment knowledge about the
links between peer nodes.
A peer node maintains its peer node - OLS LMP sessions and its peer
node - peer node LMP sessions independently. This means that it MUST
be possible for LMP sessions to come up in any order. In particular,
it MUST be possible for a peer node - peer node LMP session to come
up in the absence of any peer node - OLS LMP sessions and vice
versa.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [LMP].
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
DWDM: Dense wavelength division multiplexor
OLS: Optical line system
Opaque:
A device is called X-opaque if it examines or modifies the X
aspect of the signal while forwarding an incoming signal from
input to output.
OXC: Optical cross-connect
Transparent:
As defined in [LMP], a device is called X-transparent if it
forwards incoming signals from input to output without examining
or modifying the X aspect of the signal. For example, a Frame
Relay switch is network-layer transparent; an all-optical switch
is electrically transparent.
1.2. Scope of LMP-WDM Protocol
This document focuses on extensions required for use with opaque
OLSs. In particular, this document is intended for use with OLSs
having SONET, SDH, and Ethernet user ports.
At the time of this writing, work is ongoing in the area of fully
transparent wavelength routing; however, it is premature to identify
the necessary information to be exchanged between a peer node and an
OLS in this context. Nevertheless, the protocol described in this
document provides the necessary framework in which to exchange
whatever additional information is deemed appropriate.
2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems
LMP currently consists of four main procedures, of which the first
two are mandatory and the last two are optional:
1. Control channel management
2. Link property correlation
3. Link verification
4. Fault management
All four functions are supported in LMP-WDM.
2.1. Control Channel Management
As in [LMP], we do not specify the exact implementation of the
control channel; it could be, for example, a separate wavelength,
fiber, Ethernet link, an IP tunnel routed over a separate management
network, a multi-hop IP network, or the overhead bytes of a data
link.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
The control channel management for a peer node - OLS link is the
same as for a peer node - peer node link, as described in [LMP].
To distinguish between a peer node - OLS LMP session from a peer
node - peer node LMP session, a new LMP-WDM CONFIG object is defined
(C-Type = TBA by IANA). The format of the CONFIG object is as
follows:
Class = 6.
o C-Type = TBA, LMP-WDM_CONFIG
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|W|O| (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
WDM: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the LMP-WDM extensions defined
in this draft.
OLS: 1 bit
If set, this bit indicates that the sender is an optical line
system (OLS). If clear, this bit indicates that the sender is a
peer node.
The LMP-WDM extensions are designed for peer node - OLS LMP
sessions. The OLS bit allows a node to identify itself as an OLS or
a peer node. This is used to detect misconfiguration of a peer node
-OLS LMP session between two peer nodes or a peer node - peer node
LMP session between a peer node and an OLS.
If the node does not support the LMP-WDM extensions, it MUST reply
to the Config message with a ConfigNack message.
If a peer node that is configured to run LMP-WDM receives a Config
message with the OLS bit clear in LMP-WDM_CONFIG Object, it MUST
reply to the Config message with a ConfigNack message.
2.2. Link Verification
The Test procedure used with OLSs is the same as described in [LMP].
The VerifyTransportMechanism (included in the BeginVerify and
BeginVerifyAck messages) is used to allow nodes to negotiate a link
verification method and is essential for line systems that have
access to overhead bytes rather than the payload. The VerifyId
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
(provided by the remote node in the BeginVerifyAck message, and used
in all subsequent Test messages) is used to differentiate Test
messages from different LMP Link Verification procedures. In
addition to the Test procedure described in [LMP], the trace
monitoring function of [LMP-SDH] may be used for link verification
when the OLS user ports are SONET or SDH.
In a combined LMP and LMP-WDM context, there is an interplay between
the data links being managed by peer node - peer node LMP sessions
and peer node - OLS LMP sessions. For example, in Figure 2, the
OXC1-OLS1 LMP session manages the data links between OXC1 and OLS1,
and the OXC2-OLS2 LMP session manages the data links between OXC2
and OLS2. However, the OXC1-OXC2 LMP session manages the data links
between OXC1 and OXC2, which are actually a concatenation of the
data links between OXC1 and OLS1, the DWDM span between OLS1 and
OLS2, and the data links between OXC2 and OLS2, and it is these
concatenated links which comprise the TE links which are advertised
in the GMPLS TE link state database.
The implication of this is that when the data links between OXC1 and
OXC2 are being verified, using the LMP link verification procedure,
OLS1 and OLS2 need to make themselves transparent with respect to
these concatenated data links. The coordination of verification of
OXC1-OLS1 and OXC2-OLS2 data links to ensure this transparency is
the responsibility of the peer nodes, OXC1 and OXC2.
It is also necessary for these peer nodes to understand the mappings
between the data links of the peer node - OLS LMP session and the
concatenated data links of the peer node - peer node LMP session.
2.3. Link Summarization
As in [LMP], the LinkSummary message is used to synchronize the
Interface Ids and correlate the properties of the TE link. (Note
that the term "TE Link" originated from routing/signaling
applications of LMP, whereas this concept does not necessarily apply
to an OLS. However, the term is used in this document to remain
consistent with LMP terminology.) The LinkSummary message includes
one or more DATA_LINK objects. The contents of the DATA_LINK object
consist of a series of variable-length data items called Data Link
sub-objects describing the capabilities of the data links.
In this document, several additional Data Link sub-objects are
defined to describe additional link characteristics. The link
characteristics are, in general, those needed by the CSPF to select
the path for a particular LSP. These link characteristics describe
the specified peer node - OLS data link as well as the associated
DWDM span between the two OLSs.
The format of the Data Link sub-objects follows the format described
in [LMP] and is shown below for readability:
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------//--------------+
| Type | Length | (Sub-object contents) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------//--------------+
Type: 8 bits
The Type indicates the type of contents of the sub-object.
Length: 8 bits
The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be
at least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
The following Link Characteristics are exchanged on a per data link
basis.
2.3.1. Link Group ID
The main purpose of the Link Group ID is to reduce control traffic
during failures that affect many data links. A local ID may be
assigned to a group of data links. This ID can be used to reduce the
control traffic in the event of a failure by enabling a single
ChannelStatus message with the LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object (see
Section 2.4.1) to be used for a group of data links instead of
individual ChannelStatus messages for each data link. A data link
may be a member of multiple groups. This is achieved by including
multiple Link Group ID sub-objects in the LinkSummary message.
The Link Group ID feature allows Link Groups to be assigned based
upon the types of fault correlation and aggregation supported by a
given OLS. From a practical perspective, the Link Group ID is used
to map (or group) data links into "failable entities" known
primarily to the OLS. If one of those failable entities fails, all
associated data links are failed and the peer node is notified with
a single message.
For example, an OLS could create a Link Group for each laser in the
OLS. The data links associated with each laser would then each be
assigned the Link Group ID for that laser. If a laser fails, the OLS
would then report a single failure affecting all of the data links
with Link Group ID of the failed laser. The peer node that receives
the single failure notification then knows which data links are
affected. Similarly, an OLS could create a Link Group ID for a
fiber, to report a failure affecting all of the data links
associated with that fiber if a loss-of-signal (LOS) is detected for
that fiber.
The format of the Link Group ID sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=8) is
as follows:
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Group ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
Link Group ID: 32 bits
Link Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data
links in a TE link. All data links are members of Link Group
0xFFFFFFFF by default.
2.3.2. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Identifier
This identifies the SRLGs of which the data link is a member. This
information may be configured on an OLS by the user and used for
diverse path computation (see [GMPLS-RTG]).
The format of the SRLG sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=(N+1)*4 where N
is the number of SRLG values) is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG value #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG value #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG value #(N-1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG value #N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
Shared Risk Link Group Value: 32 bits
See [GMPLS-RTG]. List as many SRLGs as apply.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
2.3.3. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate
This object provides an estimate of the BER for the data link.
The Bit Error Rate (BER) is the proportion of bits that have errors
relative to the total number of bits received in a transmission,
usually expressed as ten to a negative power. For example, a
transmission might have a BER of "10 to the minus 13", meaning that,
out of every 10,000,000,000,000 bits transmitted, one bit may be in
error. The BER is an indication of overall signal quality.
The format of the BER Estimate sub-object (Type=TBD; Length=4) is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | BER | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
BER: 8 bits
The exponent from the BER representation described above. I.e.,
if the BER is 10 to the minus X, the BER field is set to X.
2.3.4. Optical Protection
This indicates whether the link is protected by the OLS. This
information can be used as a measure of link capability. It may be
advertised by routing and used by signaling as a selection criterion
as described in [RFC3471].
The format of the Optical Protection sub-object (Type=TBD; Length=4)
is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
Link Flags: 6 bits
Encoding for Link Flags is defined in Section 7 of [RFC3471].
2.3.5. Total Span Length
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
This indicates the total distance of fiber in the OLS. This may be
used as a routing metric or to estimate delay.
The format of the Total Span Length sub-object (Type=TBD, Length=8)
is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Span Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
Span Length: 32 bits
This value represents the total Length of the WDM span in meters
expressed as an unsigned (long) integer.
2.3.6. Administrative Group (Color)
The administrative group (or Color) to which the data link belongs.
The format of the Administrative Group sub-object (Type=TBD,
Length=8) is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Group |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Reserved field should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
Administrative Group: 32 bits
A 32 bit value as defined in [RFC3630].
2.4. Fault Management
Fault management consists of three major functions:
1. Fault Detection
2. Fault Localization
3. Fault Notification
The fault detection mechanisms are the responsibility of the
individual nodes and are not specified as part of this protocol.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
Fault detection mechanisms may include a bit error rate (BER)
exceeding a threshold, loss of signal (LOS) and SONET/SDH-level
errors. It is the responsibility of the OLS to translate these
failures into (Signal) OK, Signal Failure (SF), or Signal Degrade
(SD) as described in [LMP].
I.e., an OLS uses the messages defined in the LMP fault localization
procedures (ChannelStatus, ChannelStatusAck, ChannelStatusRequest,
and ChannelStatusResponse Messages) to inform the adjacent peer node
of failures it has detected, in order to initiate the LMP fault
localization procedures between peer nodes, but it does not
participate in those procedures.
The OLS may also execute its own fault localization process to allow
it to determine the location of the fault along the DWDM span. For
example, the OLS may be able to pinpoint the fault to a particular
amplifier in a span of thousands of kilometers in length.
To report data link failures and recovery conditions, LMP-WDM uses
the ChannelStatus, ChannelStatusAck, ChannelStatusRequest, and
ChannelStatusResponse Messages defined in [LMP].
Each data link is identified by an Interface_ID. In addition, a Link
Group ID may be assigned to a group of data links (see Section
2.3.1). The Link Group ID may be used to reduce the control traffic
by providing channel status information for a group of data links. A
new LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is defined below for this
purpose. This object may be used in place of the CHANNEL_STATUS
objects described in [LMP] in the ChannelStatus message.
2.4.1. LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS Object
The LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is used to indicate the status
of the data links belonging to a particular Link Group. The
correlation of data links to Group ID is made with the Link Group ID
sub-object of the DATA_LINK Object.
The format of the LINK_GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object is as follows
(Class = 13, C-Type =TBA by IANA):
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Group ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|D| Channel Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
// : //
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Group ID |
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|D| Channel Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Link Group ID: 32 bits
Link Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data
links in a TE link. All data links are members of Link Group
0xFFFFFFFF by default.
Channel Status: 32 bits
The values for the Channel Status field are defined in [LMP].
This Object is non-negotiable.
3. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. et al, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS," (work in progress).
[LMP] Lang, J. P., Editor, "The Link Management Protocol
(LMP)," (work in progress).
[LMP-SDH] Lang, J. P., Papadimitriou, D., "SONET/SDH Encoding for
Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test messages," (work in
progress).
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional Description,"
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and Kompella, K., "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2," RFC
3630, September 2003.
4.2. Informative References
[OLI] Fredette, A., Editor, "Optical Link Interface
Requirements," (work in progress).
5. Security Considerations
LMP message security uses IPsec as described in [LMP]. This document
only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing LMP
messages. As such, this document introduces no other new security
considerations not covered in [LMP].
6. IANA Considerations
LMP [LMP] defines the following name spaces and how IANA can make
assignments in those namespaces:
- LMP Message Type.
- LMP Object Class.
- LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class.
- LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class.
This memo introduces the following new assignments:
LMP Object Class Types:
o under CONFIG class name (as defined in [LMP])
- LMP-WDM_CONFIG (suggested C-Type = 2)
o under CHANNEL_STATUS class name (as defined in [LMP])
- LINK_GROUP (suggested C-Type = 4)
LMP Sub-Object Class names:
o under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in [LMP])
- Link_GroupId (suggested sub-object Type = 3)
- SRLG (suggested sub-object Type = 4)
- BER_Estimate (suggested sub-object Type = 5)
- Optical_Protection (suggested sub-object Type = 6)
- Total_Span_Length (suggested sub-object Type = 7)
- Administrative_Group (suggested sub-object Type = 8)
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
7. Contributors
Osama S. Aboul-Magd, Stuart Brorson, Sudheer Dharanikota, John
Drake, David Drysdale, W. L. Edwards, Adrian Farrel, Andre Fredette,
Rohit Goyal, Hirokazu Ishimatsu, Monika Jaeger, Ram Krishnan,
Jonathan P. Lang, Raghu Mannam, Eric Mannie, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Jagan Shantigram, Ed Snyder, George Swallow, Gopala Tumuluri, Yong
Xue, Lucy Yong, John Yu.
8. Contact Address
Andre Fredette
Hatteras Networks
P.O. Box 110025
Research Triangle Park
NC 27709-0025, USA
EMail: Afredette@HatterasNetworks.com
Jonathan P. Lang
Rincon Networks
829 De La Vina, Suite 220
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
EMail: jplang@ieee.org
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt December 2003
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Fredette, A., and Lang, J., Eds. - Standards Track [Page 16]