OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ccamp mailing list <email@example.com>, ccamp chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing' to Experimental RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09.txt> as an Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09.txt
Technical Summary The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network technologies including optical networks such as time division multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks. The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols are provided in other documents. This document defines to the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for routing in an ASON. Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations current when those documents were written. Future extensions of revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of RFC 4258. Working Group Summary As noted above, although concerns were raised about the completeness of RFC 4258 that sets out the requirements, it has been agreed that this I-D should progress while work continues to revise that RFC. If changes or additions should be required as a result of the revision of RFC 4258, this work can be revised in the future. Document Quality There are no known implementations or planned implementations of this work. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Deborah Brungard. The Responsible AD is Adrian Farrel.