Network Working Group Pierre Peloso Internet Draft Alcatel-Lucent Intended status: Standard Track Julien Meuric Expires: April 2011 France Telecom Giovanni Martinelli Cisco October 25, 2010 OSPF-TE Extensions for WSON-specific Network Element Constraints draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-02.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This document describes OSPF routing protocols extensions to support blocking nodes and O-E-O pools in all-optical networks under the control of Generalized MPLS (GMPLS). 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 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................2 2. Resource Block Attribute.....................................3 2.1. Pool ID................................................5 2.2. Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability.............5 2.3. Resource Element Information............................5 2.4. Relation with Node......................................5 3. Security Considerations......................................6 4. IANA Considerations.........................................6 4.1. Resource Block attributes...............................6 5. References..................................................6 6. Author's Addresses..........................................8 Intellectual Property Statement.................................8 Disclaimer of Validity.........................................9 1. Introduction The goal of all-optical meshed networks consists in the transport of optical circuit connections, with limited usage of Optical- Electrical-Optical conversion through photonic nodes. The gain brought by the use of fewer regenerators is balanced by the constraint of maintaining the optical signal continuity between the source and the destination nodes. In GMPLS controlled networks, the induced signal continuity brings the technological challenge of wavelength assignment using control plane protocols, which is discussed in [WSON-Frame]. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 The drawback of wavelength assignment computation in a single entity is the need to gather and convey all relevant and up-to-date information to this single entity. Whether the computing entity takes the form of a PCE or the form of a Constrained-Shortest-Path-First (C-SPF) engine in each node of the network, the IGP is supposed to do the job of gathering this information. This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based on [WSON-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. The enhancements to the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute [RFC5786]. In this document, we introduce a new top-level TLV containing Resource Block Attribute (RBA). [WSON-Encode] introduce the concept of RBA to include all information that are specific to WSON nodes. This information may introduce some additional constrains that needs to be considered to perform a correct RWA. This document does not define any additional encoding but maps information from [WSON-Info] and [WSON-Encode] on OSPF. The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this document. [WSON-Encode] provides encoding detail. 2. Resource Block Attribute This draft defines a new top-TLV named "Resource Block Attribute" TLV. It carries attributes related to a pool of Optical-Electric- Optical regeneration resource, thus allowing route computation to take into account available signal regenerators in the network. Available OEO resource introduce different kind of constrains. One is the signal compatibility as defined in [WSON-Signal]. Another constrain comes from WSON node topologies (for technology reasons or cost of resources). This draft mainly refers to the latter. Multiple O-E-O resources are logically gathered in a pool when they share a common transmission media before (and after) entering (exiting) the actual switching matrix of the node. A common transmission media is characterized by the sharing of at least a short section of fiber: hence an amplifier or a wavelength selective switch does also correspond to a common transmission media. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 When several regenerators' pools are available on a node, several "Resource Block Attribute" will be used (one for each pool). As a matter of fact, the split into blocks of the O-E-O resources comes from the architectural structure of the node. This Node Attribute TLV contains two or more sub-TLVs. The resource block attributes related to OEO pools in WSON nodes include Block ID, lists of available wavelengths on the ingress and egress side of the pool, and the features of the resources in the block. These pieces of information are described in this document and refer to . The Resource Block Attribute would also include some sub- TLVs identical to sub-TLVs of the TE-link top-TLV: TE-metric [rfc3630], Administrative Group [rfc3630], Link Local/Remote Identifiers [rfc4203], Shared-Risk Link Group [rfc4203]. The following new sub-TLVs are added to the "Resource Block Attribute" TLV. Detailed description for newly defined sub-TLVs is provided at the end of the section. Sub-TLV Type Length Name TBD 4 Bytes Block ID TBD variable Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability TBD fixed Resource Element Information In "Resource Block Attribute", the sub-TLV "Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability" and "Resource Block Information" are mandatory, the other sub-TLV listed above is optional. The following sub-TLVs to the "Resource Block Attribute" TLV are identical to the ones defined respectively in [RFC3630] and [RFC4203], and being defined for the TE-link top-TLV. Detailed description for newly defined sub-TLV is provided at the end of the section. Sub-TLV Type Length Name TBD 4 Bytes TE-metric [alike RFC3630] TBD 4 Bytes Administrative Group [alike RFC3630] TBD 8 Bytes Link Local/Remote Identifiers [alike RFC4203] TBD variable Shared Risk Link Group [alike RFC4203] Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 In "Resource Block Attribute", the sub-TLV "Link Local/Remote Identifiers" is mandatory as it is needed to ensure the consistency with the Node Information described in [Gen-OSPF] and [Gen-Encode]. The other sub-TLVs listed above are optional. 2.1. Pool ID This optional sub-TLV can be used to provide an identifier to the regenerator pool. 2.2. Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability This block includes information from [WSON-Encode] section 4.4 "Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability". It is used to describe the wavelengths available on the shared fibers (ingress and egress sides) of the pool. At every RWA process the OEO pool may or may-not be used. The status of the wavelength availability will change. The information is fairly dynamic. 2.3. Resource Element Information This sub-TLV advertises information that describes the features of the resource elements inside the resource block itself. The features are the accepted bit-rates, modulation format, FEC formats, etc... Actually this sub-TLV is replicated in a list of such sub-TLVs in order to depict all the resource elements available in the pool. The description of the encoding of this sub-TLV is available in [WSON- encode] section 5 (Hence needs a slight adaptation of TLV described in 5.1: Resource Block Information). The features of a given element are fairly static as they refer to the characteristics of the device, which mean that the content of a given sub-TLV is static. On the other hand, the elements composing the list are subject to change, when a device is used, its corresponding sub-TLV will disappear from the list. 2.4. Relation with Node Accessing resource block is also subject to switching constraints. These switching constraints can be both spatial and spectral. In order to convey this information, the Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV shall depict the ports of the O-E-O pool, and referring their Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV as described in section 2. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 Hence the number of ports described by the connectivity matrix is: # Ingress ports (CM): # incoming links (Node) + # O-E-O pools # Egress ports (CM): # outgoing links (Node) + # O-E-O pools 3. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any further security issues other than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. 4. IANA Considerations [RFC3630] says that the top level Types in a TE LSA and Types for sub-TLVs for each top level Types must be assigned by Expert Review, and must be registered with IANA. IANA is requested to allocate new Types for the sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2, 3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 as follows: 4.1. Resource Block attributes This document introduces the "O-E-O Pool Attribute" top-TLV, value TBD with the following sub-TLVs: Type Name TBD Pool ID TBD Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability TBD Resource Element Information TBD TE-metric [alike RFC3630] TBD Administrative Group [alike RFC3630] TBD Link Local/Remote Identifiers [alike RFC4203] TBD Shared Risk Link Group [alike RFC4203] 5. References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010. [WSON-Frame] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-07.txt, October 2010. [RWA-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info- 06.txt, October 2010. [Gen-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-ext-encode-00.txt. [WSON-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson- encode-06.txt, October 2010. [Gen-OSPF] F. Zhang, Y. Lee, J. Han, G. Bernstein, " OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints", work in progress: draft-zhang-ccamp-general-constraints-ospf-ext-00.txt, September 2010. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 6. Author's Addresses Pierre Peloso Alcatel-Lucent Rte de Villejust 91620 Nozay, France Phone: +33 130 702 662 Email: pierre.peloso@alcatel-lucent.com Julien Meuric France Telecom 2, av Pierre Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex, France Phone: +33 296 052 828 Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Giovanni Martinelli Cisco Via Philips 12 20052 Monza, Italy Phone: +39 039 2092044 Email: giomarti@cisco.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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. Copies of Intellectual Property 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 Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for O-E-O in WSON October 2010 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Peloso and Meuric Expires April 25, 2011 [Page 9]