CCAMP Working Group Germano Gasparini Category: Internet Draft Gert Grammel Expiration Date: December 2002 Dimitri Papadimitriou - Alcatel June 2002 Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF and ISIS for GMPLS Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-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 [1]. 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. 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 [2]. Abstract This document introduces the traffic engineering extensions required in existing IGP protocols to support sub-sequent signalling for Label Switched Path (LSP) when using Generalized MPLS signalling as defined in [GMPLS-SIG] and [GMPLS-G709] for G.709 Optical Transport Networks (see [GMPLS-G709]). In particular, using [GMPLS-RTG] as guideline, it specifies the GMPLS routing extensions to OSPF and IS- IS protocols for G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTN). Based on the Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions defined in [OSPF- TE] and [ISIS-TE], the proposed approach supports link bundling as D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2002 1 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 defined in [MPLS-BDL] and defines several new sub-TLVs for Optical Transport Network (OTN) control by extending those proposed in [GMPLS-OSPF] and [GMPLS-ISIS]. The proposed encoding does not preclude any further integration in these documents that the current one intends to complement. 1. Introduction The approach proposed in this document is based on Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions as defined in [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE] which have been extended for GMPLS in [GMPLS-OSPF] and [GMPLS-ISIS]. The current proposal also uses the notion Link Bundling and TE Link as defined in [MPLS-BDL]. A set of links between two adjacent GMPLS nodes (or simply nodes) is defined as a TE-link, identified by a TE link ID. GMPLS currently integrates the TE-link notion by detailing among others that several links having the same Traffic Engineering (TE) capabilities (i.e. same TE metric, same set of Resource Class and same Switching capability) can be advertised as a single TE- link. Such TE-links are referred to as link bundles whose individual data bearing link (or simply links) are referred to as component links; There is no longer a one-to-one association between a regular routing adjacency and a TE-link. In order to enable distributed G.709 OTN control, the IGP routing protocol has to enable the exchange of two different sets (or types) of information. First, a set that describes the link capabilities of a GMPLS G.709 OTN node (or simply a node in this context), independently of their usage. Second, a set that describes the OTN resources (more precisely the digital timeslots or the optical channels) that are in use at each TE link. The first set can be defined as being driven by less frequent updates (since TE Link capabilities changes are not expected to be frequent) while the second would follow update interval values as than the one used for any other non-technology dependent TE Link attribute. We consider here that when this frequency is very low the corresponding TE-link capability is static; by opposition, other are referred to as dynamic. Details concerning update frequency usage and related concepts are out of the scope of the current document. Moreover, the G.709 Optical Transport Hierarchy (OTH) is composed by a digital and an optical part (see [ITUT-G709]). The first one includes the Digital Path Layer (i.e. the ODUk layers) while the second one includes the Optical Channel Layer (i.e. the OCh layer). Consequently we can define for of each of these hierarchies a separated set of specific TLV. We refer to the first set as LD (Link Digital) and to the second as LO (Link Optical). Consequently, two specific sub-sets of information must be flooded by an extended link state routing protocol to enable Traffic- Engineering of the G.709 LSPs (ODUk and OCh LSPs) in OTN. First, a set of information describing the TE Link capabilities (i.e. the D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 2 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 OTM-n.m/OTM-nr.m/OTM-0.m interface capabilities) independently of their usage must be defined. Then a set of information describing the resources utilization (also referred to as ODUk or OCh component allocation) used at each TE Link and expressed in terms of number unallocated components. In this way, one can reduce the amount of more static information (since changes are less frequent when considering TE Link capabilities) flooded through the routing protocol. This, while keeping the more dynamic information (changes are more frequent when considering TE Link component allocation for instance) confined to the layer to which this information is relevant. Routing information is exchanged in OSPF by Link State Advertisements (LSAs) grouped in OSPF PDUs, and in IS-IS by Link State PDUs (LSPs). When using OSPF, GMPLS TE links can be advertised using Opaque LSAs (Link State Advertisements) of Type 10 (see [RFC- 2370]). This Traffic Engineering (TE) LSA with area flooding scope is defined in [OSPF-TE] and has one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. Per [OSPF-TE], the following top-level TLVs are defined (1) Router Address TLV (referred to as the Node TLV) and (2) TE Link TLV. When using IS-IS, GMPLS TE links are advertised using LS PDUs. TE Attributes TLVs are defined as sub-TLV for the Extended IS Reachability TLV (TLV 22) (see [ISIS-TE] and [GMPLS-ISIS]). Therefore, in this memo, we propose to extend the current sub-TLV set of both the TE Link TLV (in OSPF) and the Extended IS Reachability TLV (in ISIS). For each of these sets, the following sub-TLVs are defined: 1. G.709 TE Link capabilities: - LD-MC TLV : TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV - LD-CC TLV : TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability TLV 2. G.709 TE Link component allocation: - LD-CA TLV : TE Link ODUk Component Allocation TLV - LO-CA TLV : TE Link OCh Component Allocation TLV Note: the proposed sub-TLVs can also complement the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV of the TE Link TLV and Extended IS Reachability TLV (see [GMPLS-OSPF] and [GMPLS-ISIS], respectively) when the Switching Capability field value refers to (G.709 ODU) TDM. In addition, it results from the TE Link definition (see [MPLS-BDL]) that each of its component link should support the same multiplexing and (virtual) concatenation capabilities. The corresponding TLVs (LD-MC and LD-CC) are specified once, and apply to each component link. No per component information or identification is required for these TLVs. D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 3 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 2. TE-Link Capabilities TE-Link capabilities are (only) defined at the digital path layer (i.e. the ODUk layers); the corresponding TE Link capability TLVs includes: - LD-MC TLV : TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV - LD-CC TLV : TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability TLV 2.1 TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV (LD-MC TLV) The TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV (LD-MC TLV) describes the ODUk multiplexing structure available on a given link. This TLV indicates the signals that can be potentially allocated in an ODUk multiplex. As described in [ITUT-G709], in addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3), the current version of the G.709 recommendation 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 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 then mapped into an ODUk and the ODUk is finally mapped into an OTUk. Subsequently, the OTUk is mapped into an OCh/OChr, which is then modulated onto an OCC/OCCr. In IS-IS, the LD-MC TLV is defined as a sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV with type TBD. In OSPF, this TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV whose type is TBD. The length of this TLV is four octets. It includes a Multiplexing Capability Flag (MC-Flag) coded in one octet and defined as a vector of bit flags. OSPF TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV (LD-MC TLV) coding: 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 = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MC-Flag | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ISIS TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV coding (Sub-TLV Type TBD and Length = 4): D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 4 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MC-Flag | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following values are currently defined for the MC-Flag: - Flag 1 (Bit 1): ODU1 multiplexing into ODU2 - Flag 2 (Bit 2): ODU1 multiplexing into ODU3 - Flag 3 (Bit 3): reserved - Flag 4 (Bit 4): ODU2 multiplexing into ODU3 - Flag 5 (Bit 5) to 8 (Bit 8): reserved A bit value of 1 indicates that the multiplexing capability is supported while a bit value of 0 indicates that the multiplexing capability is not supported. For instance, the support of ODU1 and ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing is defined by setting the Flag 1 and the Flag 4 to one. Reserved Flags must be set to zero. When Flags 1 to 8 are set to zero (in addition to the reserved field), ODUk multiplexing is not supported on the TE link: the corresponding ODUk signal(s) is not further structured. 2.2 TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability TLV (LD-CC TLV) ODUk virtual concatenation refers to the concatenation of two or more identical ODUk signals as defined in [ITUT-G709]. The resulting signal is defined as an ODUk-Xv. The ODUk-Xv signal can then transport a non-OTN client signal. For instance, an ODU2-4v may transport an STM-256 client signal. The characteristic information of a virtual concatenated ODUk (ODUk- Xv) layer network is transported via a set of X ODUk LSP, each LSP having its own transfer delay. The egress G.709 node terminating the ODUk-Xv LSP has to compensate this differential delay in order to provide a contiguous payload at the output. In IS-IS, the TE Link ODUk Concatenation Capability TLV (LD-CC TLV) is defined as a sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV whose Type is TBD. In OSPF, this TLV is a sub-TLV of the TE Link TLV, with type TBD. OSPF TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability TLV (LD-CC TLV) coding: 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 (n*4) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | CT | Res. | LT | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 5 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // . . . // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | CT | Res. | LT | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ISIS TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability TLV coding (Sub- TLV Type TBD and Length = n*4): 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 | CT | Res. | LT | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // . . . // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | CT | Res. | LT | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NCC | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Signal Type (8 bits): The Signal Type field values are defined in [GMPLS-G709]. CT û Concatenation Type (4 bits): The CT field is defined as a 4-bit vector of flags (with bit 1 defined as the low order bit) indicating the supported concatenation type(s): Flag 1 (Bit 1): Reserved Flag 2 (Bit 2): Virtual Concatenation Flag 3 (Bit 3): Reserved Flag 4 (Bit 4): Reserved D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 6 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 Reserved (4 bits): The Reserved field bits must be set to zero when sent and should be ignored when received. LT û List Type (4 bits): The LT field indicates the type of the list; the following values are defined (the values to which multiple lists refer must be mutually disjoint): 0x0000 Reserved 0x0001 Inclusive list 0x0010 Exclusive list 0x0011 Inclusive range (one or more Minimum/Maximum pairs) 0x0100 Exclusive range (one or more Minimum/Maximum pairs) Values ranging from 0x0101 to 0x1111 are reserved. List Length (12 bits): The List Length indicates the number of NCC elements included within a given sub-list. Zero is an invalid value. NCC - Number of Concatenated Components (16 bits): The NCC field indicates the supported number X of ODU components with respect to the Signal Type and the CT values (here, in fact limited to virtual concatenation) that can compose an ODUk-Xv signal on the corresponding TE Link. When the LT field value equals 1 or 2, at least one number X1 (i.e. one NCC field) must be included in the list. When list of numbers X1,..,Xn is included, with Xi < Xj (i < j), each Xi indicates the number of ODUÆs supported (or not supported, respectively) in a virtually concatenated signal. When the LT field value equals 3 or 4, at least one pair of numbers X1 and X2 (i.e. two NCC fields) must be included in the list, with X1 < X2. The first one indicates the minimum number X1 of ODUÆs and the second one the maximum number X2 of ODUÆs supported (or not supported, respectively) in a virtually concatenated signal. 3. TE-Link Dynamic Component Allocation To detail the actual status of a TE-link (representing either a single component link or a bundled link), the following Component Allocation TLVs are defined: - LD-CA TLV : Link ODUk Component Allocation TLV - LO-CA TLV : Link OCh Component Allocation TLV D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 7 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 3.1 Digital Path Layer The TE Link ODUk Component Allocation TLV (LD-CA TLV) represents the number of unallocated (free) ODU timeslots also referred to as components, per ODUk Signal Type value (k = 1, 2, 3) on a given TE link. Therefore, when advertised for the first time, this TLV represents the total capacity in terms of number of ODU timeslot per TE link i.e. the Maximum Number of ODUk components supported on this TE link. The LD-CA TLV is defined in IS-IS as a sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV whose Type is TBD. In OSPF, this TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV whose Type is TBD. The length of this sub-TLV is max(k)*4, where max(k) is the maximum value of the k index supported on the corresponding TE link. OSPF Link ODUk Component Allocation TLV (LD-CA TLV) coding: 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 = max(k)*4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | Number of Unallocated ODU TimeSlots | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | . . . | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | Number of Unallocated ODU TimeSlots | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ISIS TE Link ODUk Component Allocation TLV coding (Sub-TLV Type TBD and Length = max(k)*4): 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 | Number of Unallocated ODU TimeSlots | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | . . . | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | Number of Unallocated ODU TimeSlots | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ When two Number of Unallocated ODU Timeslots fields with the same Signal Type value are advertised, the second one indicates the number of contiguous block of unallocated ODU timeslots. Thus, when advertised initially the corresponding value equal 1. D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 8 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 Note: since currently the maximum value of the k index is 3 the maximum length of the LD-CA TLV is 12 octets except when the blocks of unallocated ODU timeslots are advertised. 3.2 Optical Channel (OCh) Layer The TE Link OCh Component Allocation TLV (LO-CA TLV) represents the number of optical channel actually allocated on a given TE link. This TE Link can, by definition, include one (single link) or more than one (bundled link) OTM-nr.m or OTM-n.m interface. This allocation is expressed in terms of the Number of Unallocated Optical Channel per bit-rate, represented here as OCh1 (2.5 Gbps), OCh2 (10 Gbps) and OCh3 (40 Gbps), respectively. Therefore, when advertised for the first time, the Number of Unallocated OCh1, OCh2 and OCh3 represents the Maximum Number of optical channels supported on a given TE link at each bit rate, respectively. The LO-CA TLV is defined in IS-IS as a sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV whose Type is TBD. In OSPF, this TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV whose Type is TBD. The length of this sub-TLV is max(m)*4 octets, where max(m) is the maximum value of the m index (m = 1, 2, 3) supported on the corresponding TE link. The Signal Type field values are defined in [GMPLS-G709]. OSPF TE Link OCh Component Allocation TLV (LO-CA TLV) coding: 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 = max(m)*4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type |R| Number of Unallocated OCh | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | . . . | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type |R| Number of Unallocated OCh | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ISIS TE Link OCh Component Allocation TLV coding (Sub-TLV Type TBD and Length = max(m)*4 octets): 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 |R| Number of Unallocated OCh | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | . . . | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type |R| Number of Unallocated OCh | D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 9 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The R bit indicates the functionality of the corresponding OTM- n.m/OTM-nr.m interface(s). When R = 0, the interface signal refers to an OTM-n.m (reduced functionality OChr) while R = 1, to an OTM- nr.m (full functionality OCh). The value of this bit is irrelevant in any other situation. Therefore this encoding allows for TE links including both OTM-nr.m and OTM-n.m interfaces. Each component link belonging to the same TE Link can have independently from each other a reduced OR a full functionality stack support. Thus, reduced AND full optical channels at 2.5, 10 or 40 Gbps can compose TE links. Since currently the maximum value of the m index is 3, the maximum length of the LO-CA TLV is 24 octets: 2 x (3 x 4) octets. Note: OCh Multiplexing Capability As described in [ITUT-G709], with reduced stack functionality: up to n (n >= 1) OCCr are multiplexed into an OCG-nr.m using wavelength division multiplexing. The OCCr tributary slots of the OCG-nr.m can be of different size (depending on the m value with m = 1, 2, 3). The number of OCCr that can be multiplexed into an OCG-nr.m is bounded by the following formula: 1 =< i + j + k =< n where i (respectively, k and j) represents the number of OChr carrying an OTU1 (respectively, OTU2 and OTU3). The OCG-nr.m is transported via the OTM-nr.m. With full stack functionality: up to n (n >= 1) OCC are multiplexed into an OCG-n.m using wavelength division multiplexing. The OCC tributary slots of the OCG-n.m can be of different size (depending on the m value with m = 1, 2, 3). The number of OCC that can be multiplexed into an OCG-n.m is bounded by the following formula: 1 =< i + j + k =< n where i (respectively, k and j) represents the number of OCh carrying an OTU1 (respectively, OTU2 and OTU3). The OCG-n.m is transported via the OTM-n.m. 4. Security Considerations Routing protocol related security considerations are identical to the on referenced in [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE]. 5. References [GMPLS-ARCH] E.Mannie (Editor) et al., æGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) ArchitectureÆ, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture- 02.txt, February 2002. [GMPLS-G709] D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al., æGeneralized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 10 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 NetworksÆ, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-01.txt, June 2002. [GMPLS-ISIS] K.Kompella et al., æIS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS,Æ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-12.txt, May 2002. [GMPLS-LDP] L.Berger (Editor) et al., æGeneralized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP ExtensionsÆ, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-OSPF] K.Kompella et al., æOSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS,Æ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-07.txt, April 2002 [GMPLS-RSVP] L.Berger (Editor) et al., æGeneralized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE ExtensionsÆ, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-SIG] L.Berger (Editor) et al., æGeneralized MPLS - Signaling Functional DescriptionÆ, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E.Mannie and D.Papadimitriou (Editors) et al., "GMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH control", Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet- sdh-05.txt, June 2002. [ISIS-TE] T.Li et al.,æIS-IS Extensions for Traffic EngineeringÆ, Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-isis- traffic-04.txt, August 2001. [ITUT-G707] ITU-T G.707 Recommendation, æNetwork node interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)Æ, ITU-T, October 2000. [ITUT-G709] ITU-T G.709 Recommendation, version 1.0 (and Amendment 1), æInterface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)Æ, ITU-T, October 2001. [MPLS-BDL] K.Kompella et al., æLink Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering,Æ Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle- 03.txt, May 2002. [OSPF-TE] D.Katz, D.Yeung et K.Kompella, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic- 06.txt, Internet Draft, Work in progress, October 2001. [RFC-2370] R. Coltun, RFC 2370, Standard Track, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", IETF, July 1998. D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 11 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 6. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Alberto Bellato, Michele Fontana, and Jim Jones for their constructive comments and inputs leading to the current version of this document. 7. Author's Addresses Germano Gasparini (Alcatel) Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7670 Email: germano.gasparini@netit.alcatel.it Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7060 Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 12 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 Appendix 1 û Abbreviations 1R Re-amplification 2R Re-amplification and Re-shaping 3R Re-amplification, Re-shaping and Re-timing AI Adapted information AIS Alarm Indication Signal APS Automatic Protection Switching BDI Backward Defect Indication BEI Backward Error Indication BI Backward Indication BIP Bit Interleaved Parity CBR Constant Bit Rate CI Characteristic information CM Connection Monitoring EDC Error Detection Code EXP Experimental ExTI Expected Trace Identifier FAS Frame Alignment Signal FDI Forward Defect Indication FEC Forward Error Correction GCC General Communication Channel IaDI Intra-Domain Interface IAE Incoming Alignment Error IrDI Inter-Domain Interface MFAS MultiFrame Alignment Signal MS Maintenance Signal naOH non-associated Overhead NNI Network-to-Network interface OCC Optical Channel Carrier OCG Optical Carrier Group OCI Open Connection Indication OCh Optical Channel (with full functionality) OChr Optical Channel (with reduced functionality) 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 PCC Protection Communication Channel PLD Payload PM Path Monitoring PMI Payload Missing Indication PRBS Pseudo Random Binary Sequence PSI Payload Structure Identifier D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 13 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 PT Payload Type RES Reserved RS Reed-Solomon SM Section Monitoring TC Tandem Connection TCM Tandem Connection Monitoring UNI User-to-Network Interface Appendix 2 û 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 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 ôkö, where each ôkö 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 et al. û Expires December 2002 14 draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-isis-03.txt June 2002 Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). 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." D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires December 2002 15