Internet DRAFT - draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf
CCAMP Working Group Germano Gasparini
Category: Internet Draft Gert Grammel
Expiration Date: May 2003 Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
November 2002
Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of G.709 Networks
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-00.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].
(*) Previously draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospfùisis-03.txt
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 (GMPLS)
signalling as defined in [GMPLS-SIG] and [GMPLS-G709] for G.709
Optical Transport Networks. 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).
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires May 2003 1
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
Based on the Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions defined in [OSPF-
TE], the proposed approach is aligned with link bundling as defined
in [MPLS-BDL] and extends the TE link sub-TLVs proposed in [GMPLS-
OSPF] by proposing several new sub-TLVs for G.709 networks. The
proposed extensions do not preclude any further integration with the
one it intends to complement.
1. Introduction
The approach proposed in this document is based on Traffic
Engineering (TE) extensions as defined in [OSPF-TE] which have been
extended for GMPLS purposes in [GMPLS-OSPF]. The current proposal
also uses the notion Link Bundling and TE link as defined in [MPLS-
BDL]. In this context, a set of links between two adjacent GMPLS
nodes (or simply nodes) is defined as a TE link. GMPLS currently
integrates the TE link notion by specifying 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 (or ports). Moreover, 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 transport network control, the
link state routing protocol has to enable the exchange of two
different sets (or types) of information. First, a set that
describes the link capabilities belonging to a GMPLS G.709 LSR (or
simply a G.709 node in the present context) and this, independently
of their usage. Second, a set that describes the resources (more
precisely the timeslots or the optical channels) that are in use at
each of its TE links.
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 one would follow update interval values
as than the one used for any other non-technology dependent TE link
attribute (see [GMPLS-OSPF]). Therefore, one considers that when
this frequency is very low the corresponding TE link capability is
(quasi-)static; by opposition, others are referred to as dynamic.
Details concerning update frequency usage and related concepts are
out of the scope of this memo.
Moreover, the G.709 Optical Transport Hierarchy (OTH) is composed by
a digital and an optical part (see [ITUT-G709]). The former one
includes the Digital Path Layer (a.k.a. ODUk) while the latter one
includes the Optical Channel Layer (a.k.a. OCh). Consequently we can
define for of each of them a dedicated set of specific TLV.
In brief, this memo defines two additional sub-sets of information.
Their flooding enables the Traffic Engineering of the G.709 LSPs
(i.e. the ODUk and OCh LSPs). The first set describes the TE link
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 2
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
capabilities (i.e. the OTM-n.m/OTM-nr.m/OTM-0.m interface
capabilities) and this, independently of their usage. The second set
describes the resources utilization (referred to as ODUk or OCh
components) used at each TE link and expressed in terms of number of
unallocated components per TE link.
2. OSPF Routing Extensions
In 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. Also, nodes shall originate
TE LSAs whenever their content change, and whenever required by OSPF
(for example, originate an LSA refresh when the LSA age field
reaches the LSRefreshTime). However, this does not mean that every
LSA contents change must be flooded immediately. As specified in
[RFC-2328], the origination of TE LSAs SHOULD be rate-limited to at
most one every MinLSInterval. Upon receipt of a changed TE LSA or
Network LSA (since these are used in TE calculations), the node
should update its TE link state database without necessarily
performing any (Constraint-)SPF or other path computation.
Per [OSPF-TE], two top-level TLVs are defined (1) the Router Address
TLV (referred to as the Node TLV) and (2) the TE link TLV. This memo
extends the current sub-TLV set of the TE link TLV by defining:
1. G.709 TE link capabilities:
- ODUk Multiplexing Capability sub-TLV
- ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability sub-TLV
2. G.709 TE link component allocation:
- ODUk Component Allocation sub-TLV
- OCh Component Allocation sub-TLV
Also, the proposed sub-TLVs can complement the Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor sub-TLV of the TE link TLV (see [GMPLS-OSPF])
when the Switching Capability field value refers to (G.709 ODU) TDM.
Using the above classification, one can reduce the amount of more
static information flooded since changes are much less frequent when
considering TE link capabilities (see [OSPF-DNA] for instance).
This, while keeping the more dynamic information (changes are more
frequent when considering TE link component allocation for instance)
confined to the region to which this information is relevant.
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 sub-TLVs
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 April 2003 3
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
3. TE Link Capabilities
Additional TE link capabilities are (only) defined at the digital
path layer (i.e. the ODUk layers) and include the ODUk Multiplexing
Capability sub-TLV and ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability sub-
TLV.
3.1 TE Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability sub-TLV
The TE link ODUk Multiplexing Capability sub-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.
The ODUk Multiplexing Capability sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link
TLV whose type is TBD. The length of this TLV is four octets. It
includes a
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MC-Flag (8 bits):
The Multiplexing Capability Flag (MC-Flag) field is coded in
one octet and defined as a vector of bit flags.
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
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 4
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
- 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.
Reserved (24 bits)
This field SHOULD be set to zero when sent and MUST be ignored
when received.
3.2 TE Link ODUk virtual Concatenation Capability sub-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.
The TE link ODUk (virtual) Concatenation Capability sub-TLV whose
Type is TBD has the following encoding:
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 = M*(2*N + 4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | CT | Res. | LT | List Length (N) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NCC | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NCC | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// . . . //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | CT | Res. | LT | List Length (N) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NCC | . . . |
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 5
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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). A flag set to 1 indicates the
support of the corresponding concatenation type:
Flag 1 (Bit 1): Reserved
Flag 2 (Bit 2): Virtual Concatenation
Flag 3 (Bit 3): Reserved
Flag 4 (Bit 4): Reserved
Reserved flags MUST be set to zero when sent and ignored when
received.
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 field indicates the number N of NCC fields (of
16 bits) comprised in a given list including the zero padding
field. Zero is an invalid value (or equivalently, the number N
MUST be greater than 0 and the minimum sub-TLV length is of 8
octets).
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
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 6
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
(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.
When this sub-TLV includes several lists (defined with the same
Type), the NCC values that each list contain, MUST be mutually
consistent. A NCC value equal to zero refers to a zero padding
field.
Note that the maximum value of X is currently 16 (ODU1-16v)
therefore limiting the size of this sub-TLV to at most 16 x (4 + 4)
octets (i.e. worst case with one NCC field per list including zero
padding).
4. TE Link Component Allocation
To detail the actual resource utilization status of a TE link
(representing either a single component link or a bundled link), the
following TE link Component Allocation sub-TLVs are defined:
4.1 ODUk TE Link Component Allocation sub-TLV
The ODUk TE link Component Allocation sub-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 sub-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 ODUk Component Allocation sub-TLV whose Type is TBD has a length
of max(k)*4, where max(k) is the maximum value of the k index
supported on the corresponding TE link. Its encoding is defined as:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 7
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
| |
| . . . |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | Number of Unallocated ODU Timeslots |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Signal Type (8 bits):
The valid Signal Type field values are defined in [GMPLS-G709].
Number of Unallocated ODU Timeslots (24 bits):
This field indicates, per TE link, the number of unallocated
ODUk timeslots, k being implicitly specified by the Signal Type
field value.
Note: since currently the maximum value of the k index is 3 the
maximum length of this sub-TLV is 12 octets.
4.2 Optical Channel (OCh) Component Allocation sub-TLV
The TE link OCh Component Allocation sub-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 m i.e. at 2.5 Gbps (m = 1), 10 Gbps (m = 2) and 40 Gbps (m
= 3). Therefore, when advertised for the first time, the Number of
Unallocated OCh represents for each supported bit rate the Maximum
Number of optical channels supported on a given TE link.
The OCh Component Allocation TLV sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link
TLV with 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. Its encoding is defined as:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The valid Signal Type field values are defined in [GMPLS-G709].
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 8
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 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 the maximum value of the m index, as currently defined, is 3,
the maximum length of this sub-TLV is 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.
5. Scalability Considerations
A G.709-capable node should try to minimize the amount of routing
information it floods. Each time a signal is allocated or released
that information shall be flooded (not necessarily immediately) to
all nodes in the routing domain. This applies particularly to the
Component Allocation sub-TLVs. Removing an LSA is done in OSPF by
prematurely aging the LSA. The LSA is re-flooded with an LSA age
equal to MaxAge. Each node receiving an existing LSA with MaxAge
removes it from its link state database.
Also, the usage of OSPF implies each LSA must be refreshed
periodically (when the LSA age field reaches the LSRefreshTime, see
[RFC-2328]) to avoid age timeout and removal from the link state
database. This periodical LSA flooding and processing applies
particularly to the Capability sub-TLVs defined in this document
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 9
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
since their variation period is expected to be much larger than the
LSRefreshTime.
As specified in [RFC-2370], an Opaque LSA has a length field of 16
bits indicating the length of the LSA, including the header. Thus,
the length of OSPF packets can be up to 65535 octets (including the
IP header). Moreover, an OSPF packet can contain several LSAs. OSPF
relies if necessary on the IP fragmentation to transmit large
packets. However this is not recommended and it is suggested to
split packets that are too large into several smaller packets. This
is possible without any loss of functionality.
It has also to be emphasized that none of the sub-TLVs defined in
this document exceed 128 octets. Therefore, there is no particular
issue due to the size of G.709 sub-TLV to be flooded in TE LSAs.
In brief, there are no more (or less) scalability issues with the
proposed sub-TLVs (and the proposed encoding together with their
processing) than the ones already introduced in [OSPF-TE] and
[GMPLS-OSPF].
7. Compatibility Considerations
There should be no interoperability issues with G.709 GMPLS-capable
nodes that do not implement the proposed extensions, as the Opaque
LSAs (and the sub-TLVs proposed in this document) will be silently
ignored.
The result of having such nodes that do not implement these
extensions is that the G.709 specific traffic engineering topology
will be missing. However, TE constraint paths can still be
calculated using the [OSPF-TE] and [GMPLS-OSPF] technology
independent TE link sub-TLVs.
8. Security Considerations
Routing protocol related security considerations are identical to
the on referenced in [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE].
9. References
[GMPLS-ARCH] E.Mannie (Editor) et al., ôGeneralized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Architectureö, Internet Draft,
Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-
03.txt, August 2002.
[GMPLS-G709] D.Papadimitriou (Editor) et al., ôGeneralized MPLS
Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport
Networksö, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-03.txt, November 2002.
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 10
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
[GMPLS-LDP] L.Berger (Editor) et al., ôGeneralized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensionsö, Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-07.txt, August 2002.
[GMPLS-OSPF] K.Kompella et al., ôOSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized MPLS,ö Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt, August
2002.
[GMPLS-RSVP] L.Berger (Editor) et al., ôGeneralized MPLS Signaling -
RSVP-TE Extensionsö, Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-08.txt, August
2002.
[GMPLS-RTG] K.Kompella et al., ôRouting Extensions in Support of
Generalized MPLS,ö Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, August 2002.
[GMPLS-SIG] L.Berger (Editor) et al., ôGeneralized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Descriptionö, Internet Draft, Work in
progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-09.txt,
August 2002.
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E.Mannie and D.Papadimitriou (Editors) et al.,
ôGMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH controlö, Internet
Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-
sdh-07.txt, October 2002.
[ITUT-G707] ITU-T G.707 Recommendation, ôNetwork node interface for
the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)ö, ITU-T,
October 2000.
[ITUT-G709] ITU-T G.709 Recommendation, version 1.0 (and Amendment
1), ôInterface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)ö, ITU-T, October 2001.
[MPLS-BDL] K.Kompella et al., ôLink Bundling in MPLS Traffic
Engineering,ö Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-
ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, August 2002.
[OSPF-DNA] P.Pillay-Esnault et al., ôOSPF Refresh and flooding
reduction in stable topologies,ö Internet Draft, Work
in progress, draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-03.txt,
December 2000.
[OSPF-TE] D.Katz, D.Yeung and K.Kompella, ôTraffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPFö, draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-
09.txt, Internet Draft, Work in progress, October 2002.
[RFC-2328] J.Moy, RFC 2328, ôOSPF Version 2ö, STD 54, IETF
Standard Track, April 1998.
D.Papadimitriou et al. û Expires April 2003 11
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 2002
[RFC-2370] R.Coltun, RFC 2370, ôThe OSPF Opaque LSA Optionö, IETF
Standard Track, July 1998.
10. 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.
11. 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 April 2003 12
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 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 April 2003 13
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 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 April 2003 14
draft-gasparini-ccamp-gmpls-g709-ospf-04.txt Nov. 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 April 2003 15
