draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17.txt   rfc8780.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: September 1, 2019 CTTC
March 1, 2019
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Lee, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8780 Samsung Electronics
Category: Standards Track R. Casellas, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 CTTC
July 2020
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17 The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for
Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA)
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication This document provides Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs).
Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength Path provisioning in WSONs requires an RWA process. From a path
assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of
wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and
can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation.
constraint to optical path computation.
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 Status of This Memo
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 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at received public review and has been approved for publication by the
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8780.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology....................................................3 1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language..........................................3 2. Terminology
3. Introduction...................................................3 3. Requirements Language
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6 4. Encoding of an RWA Path Request
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................7 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................9 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................9 4.3. Wavelength Restriction TLV
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................12 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................14 4.3.2. Wavelength Constraint Field
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions................15 4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion.........................16 4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion.........................18 4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................19 5. Encoding of an RWA Path Reply
5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV................................19 5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV
5.2. Error Indicator..........................................20 5.2. Error Indicator
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator........................................21 5.3. NO-PATH Indicator
6. Manageability Considerations..................................22 6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................22 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................22 6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................22 6.3. Verifying Correct Operation
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components22 6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................23 6.5. Impact on Network Operation
7. Security Considerations
7. Security Considerations.......................................23 8. IANA Considerations
8. IANA Considerations...........................................23 8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object
8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object............23 8.2. WA Object Flag Field
8.2. WA Object Flag Field.....................................23 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................24 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction TLV
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......24 8.5. Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values
8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values......25 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................25 8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field.....................25 8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........26 8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal Information TLV
8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................26 8.10. New Bit Flag for NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
8.10. New No-Path Reasons.....................................27 8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values........................27 8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object
8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object.............28 8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object
8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object.............28 8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type 9. References
..............................................................28 9.1. Normative References
9. Acknowledgments...............................................29 9.2. Informative References
10. References...................................................29 Acknowledgments
10.1. Normative References....................................29 Contributors
10.2. Informative References..................................30 Authors' Addresses
11. Contributors.................................................32
Authors' Addresses...............................................33
1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
[RFC5440].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication [RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include Path
path computation requests and path computation replies as well as Computation Requests (PCReqs) and Path Computation Replies (PCReps)
notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a
context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE).
A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request
and may be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within a and may be, for instance, an optical switching element within a
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can
can be located anywhere within the network, and may be within an be located anywhere within the network and may be within an optical
optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) or switching element, a Network Management System (NMS), or an
Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network Operational Support System (OSS), or it may be an independent network
server. server.
This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of Routing
Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical
Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in Networks (WSONs) based on the requirements specified in [RFC6163] and
[RFC6163] and [RFC7449]. [RFC7449].
WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is WSON refers to WDM-based optical networks in which switching is
performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal. performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
The devices used in WSONs that are able to switch signals based on The devices used in WSONs that are able to switch signals based on
signal wavelength are known as Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). WSONs signal wavelength are known as Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). WSONs
can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical network is can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical network is
made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
wavelength to another, all within the optical domain. On the other wavelength to another, all within the optical domain. On the other
hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators (Re- hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators (reamplification,
amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) that are sparsely placed. The reshaping, and retiming) that are sparsely placed. The main function
main function of the 3R regenerators is to convert one optical of the 3R regenerators is to convert one optical wavelength to
wavelength to another. another.
A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one An LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent
or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators typically with
regenerators typically with electronic regenerator and optional electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion. Each
wavelength conversion. Each transparent segment or path in WSON is transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical
referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links, and the path
fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In a case, the
each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint.
wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between an LSC LSP and
relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical transparent segments (optical paths).
paths).
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |I1 | | | | | | I2| | | |I1 | | | | | | I2| |
| |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| | | |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X) (X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X)
<-------> <-------> <-----> <-------> <-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><----------------------> <-----------------------><---------------------->
Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment
<-------------------------------------------------> <------------------------------------------------->
LSC LSP LSC LSP
Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments Figure 1: Illustration of an LSC LSP and Transparent Segments
Note that two transparent segments within a WSON LSP do not need to Note that two transparent segments within a WSON LSP do not need to
operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion operate on the same wavelength (due to wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical channels that share a common fiber link capabilities). Two optical channels that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals cannot be assigned the same wavelength; otherwise, the two signals
would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are multiplexing techniques such as polarization-based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not addressed in this document since the physical-layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
computation process. computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on an LSP may use different wavelengths on different links along its
different links along its route from origin to destination. It is, route from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted that
however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due wavelength converters may be limited due to their relatively high
to their relatively high cost, while the number of WDM channels that cost, while the number of WDM channels that can be supported in a
can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes
composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion, that cannot perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited
nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion
wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an abilities, wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint
additional routing constraint to be considered in all optical path to be considered in all optical path computation.
computation.
For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, an LSC LSP may
be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning two transparent
segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP applies (i.e., the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP
at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding
Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would
be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2. be (X X), where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be Packet Switch Capable (PSC), Time Division For example, X can be Packet Switch Capable (PSC), Time-Division
Multiplexing (TDM), etc. Multiplexing (TDM), etc.
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for This document aligns with [RFC8779] for generic properties such as
generic properties such as label, label-set and label assignment label, label set, and label assignment, noting that a wavelength is a
noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions type of label. Wavelength restrictions and constraints are also
and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per formulated in terms of labels per [RFC7579].
[RFC7579].
The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in signal compatibility, are already considered in the signaling in
[RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and [RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing limit some optical effects, several advanced modulation processing
capabilities are used by the mechanisms specified in this document. capabilities are used by the mechanisms specified in this document.
These modulation capabilities contribute not only to optical signal These modulation capabilities not only contribute to optical signal
quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward Error processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward Error
Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of optical interface class Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of the Optical Interface Class
(OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the (OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the
optical path across all optical elements. optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical
impairments. impairments.
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request 2. Terminology
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655] and
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture, [RFC5440].
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. Encoding of an RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE-based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are specified in specified in [RFC6163], and the PCEP extensions that are specified in
this document are based on this architecture. this document are based on this architecture.
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| | | | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+ | PCE | +-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Figure 2: Combined Process (R&WA) Architecture
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by means of:
means:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE (a) Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE allocates which
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path. label to use for each interface/node along the path. The
The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject. allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) A Label Set where the PCE provides a range of potential labels
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. to be allocated by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment. signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, a PC Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, a PCReq
Request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism used for the SHOULD convey the heuristic or mechanism used for the allocation.
allocation.
The format of a PCReq message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the Per [RFC5440], the format of a PCReq message after incorporating the
Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows: Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>] [<svec-list>]
<request-list> <request-list>
Where: Where:
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>] <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP> <request>::= <RP>
<END-POINTS> <END-POINTS>
<WA> <WA>
[other optional objects...] [other optional objects...]
If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
the END-POINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. The WA Object is the END-POINTS object as defined in [RFC8779]. The WA object is
mandatory in this document. Orderings for the other optional objects mandatory in this document. Orderings for the other optional objects
are irrelevant. are irrelevant.
WA Object-Class is (TBD1) (To be assigned by IANA). For the WA object, the Object-Class is 42, and the Object-Type is 1.
WA Object-Type is 1.
The format of the WA object body is as follows: The format of the WA object body is as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |M| | Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// TLVs // // TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object Figure 3: WA Object
o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed
and ignored on receipt.
o Flags (16 bits) Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
ignored on receipt.
One flag bit is allocated as follows: Flags field (16 bits): One flag bit is allocated as follows:
- M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of M (1 bit): Wavelength Allocation Mode. The M bit is used to
wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates indicate the mode of wavelength assignment. When the M bit is
that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is, set to 1, this indicates that the label assigned by the PCE
the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means must be explicit. That is, the selected way to convey the
of Explicit Label Control for each hop of a computed LSP. allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control for
Otherwise (M bit is set to 0), the label assigned by the PCE each hop of a computed LSP. Otherwise (M bit is set to 0), the
need not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label assigned by the PCE need not be explicit (i.e., it can be
label set objects in the corresponding response, to allow suggested in the form of Label Set objects in the corresponding
distributed WA. If M is 0, the PCE MUST return a Label Set response, to allow distributed WA. If M is 0, the PCE MUST
Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. return a Label Set Field as described in Section 2.6 of
See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a [RFC7579] in the response. See Section 5 of this document for
Label Set Field in a PCRep message. the encoding discussion of a Label Set Field in a PCRep
message.
All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA is to create a new All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA has created a new
registry to manage the Flag field of the WA object. registry to manage the Flags field of the WA object.
o TLVs (variable). In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are TLVs (variable): In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are
defined. At least one TLV MUST be present. defined. At least one TLV MUST be present.
- Wavelength Selection TLV: A TLV of type (TBD2) with fixed Wavelength Selection TLV: The type of this TLV is 8, and it has a
length of 32 bits indicating the wavelength selection. See fixed length of 32 bits. This TLV indicates the wavelength
Section 4.2 for details. selection. See Section 4.2 for details.
- Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV: A TLV of type (TBD3) Wavelength Restriction TLV: The type of this TLV is 9, and it has
with variable length indicating wavelength restrictions. See a variable length. This TLV indicates wavelength restrictions.
Section 4.3 for details. See Section 4.3 for details.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when the M bit
set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be is set in the WA object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT
used when the M bit is cleared. be used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection The encoding of this TLV is specified as the WavelengthSelection sub-
Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. IANA is to allocate a new TLV TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. IANA has allocated a new TLV type
type, Wavelength Selection TLV type (TBD2). for the Wavelength Selection TLV (Type 8).
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 4.3. Wavelength Restriction TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
(PCC) MUST specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. This (PCC) MUST specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. This
restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the
tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other
maintenance related constraints. Note that if the LSP LSC spans maintenance-related constraints. Note that if the LSC LSP spans
different segments, the PCE must have mechanisms to know the different segments, the PCE must have mechanisms to know the
tunability restrictions of the involved wavelength converters / tunability restrictions of the involved wavelength converters/
regenerators, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database regenerators, e.g., by means of the Traffic Engineering Database
(TED) either via IGP or Network Management System (NMS). Even if the (TED) via either IGP or NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of
PCE knows the tunability of the transmitter, the PCC must be able to the transmitter, the PCC must be able to apply additional constraints
apply additional constraints to the request. to the request.
The format of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is as The format of the Wavelength Restriction TLV is as follows:
follows:
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::= <Wavelength Restriction> ::=
(<Action> <Count> <Reserved> (<Action> <Count> <Reserved>
<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)... <Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Constraint>)...
Where Where:
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>] <Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field. See Section 4.3.1 for the encoding of the Link Identifier field.
These fields (i.e., <Action>, <Link Identifiers> and <Wavelength These fields (i.e., <Action>, <Link Identifiers>, and <Wavelength
Restriction>, etc.) MAY appear together more than once to be able to Constraint>, etc.) MAY appear together more than once to be able to
specify multiple actions and their restrictions. specify multiple actions and their restrictions.
IANA is to allocate a new TLV type, Wavelength Restriction IANA has allocated a new TLV type for the Wavelength Restriction TLV
Constraint TLV type (TBD3). (Type 9).
The TLV data is defined as follows: The TLV data is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved | | Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers Field | | Link Identifiers |
// . . . // // . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field | | Wavelength Constraint |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ . . . . ~ ~ . . . . ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved | | Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers Field | | Link Identifiers |
// . . . // // . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field | | Wavelength Constraint |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding Figure 4: Wavelength Restriction TLV Encoding
o Action (8 bits):
o 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link Action (8 bits):
identifiers are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a 0: Inclusive List. Indicates that one or more link identifiers
separate link that is part of the set. are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
that is part of the set.
o 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a 1: Inclusive Range. Indicates that the Link Set defines a range
range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
(inclusive). All links with numeric values between the All links with numeric values between the bounds are considered
bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero to be part of the set. A value of zero in either position
in either position indicates that there is no bound on the indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding portion
corresponding portion of the range. of the range.
o 2-255 - For future use 2-255: Unassigned.
IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Action values of the IANA has created a new registry to manage the Action values of the
Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV. Wavelength Restriction TLV.
If PCE receives an unrecognized Action value, the PCE MUST send a If a PCE receives an unrecognized Action value, the PCE MUST send
PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an a PCEP Error (PCErr) message with a PCEP-ERROR object with Error-
Error-value (Error-value=3). See Section 5.2 for details. Type=27 and an Error-value=3. See Section 5.2 for details.
Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional. Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count (8 bits): The number of the link identifiers Count (8 bits):
The number of the link identifiers.
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to
links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set all links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a
of wavelengths. set of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the same Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the
type. same type.
o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be Reserved (16 bits):
zeroed and ignored on receipt. Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and ignored on
receipt.
o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which Link Identifiers:
restriction is applied. The length is dependent on the link Identifies each link ID for which restriction is applied. The
format and the Count field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link length is dependent on the link format and the Count field. See
Identifier encoding. Section 4.3.1 for encoding of the Link Identifier field.
o Wavelength Restriction: See Section 4.3.2. for the Wavelength Wavelength Constraint:
Restriction Field encoding. See Section 4.3.2 for the encoding of the Wavelength Constraint
field.
Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not exactly
exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier types,
types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate errors
errors associated with this encoding, a PCEP speaker MUST send a associated with this encoding, a PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr
PCErr message with Error-Type=TBD8 and Error-value=3. See Section message with Error-Type=27 and Error-value=3. See Section 5.2 for
5.1 for the details. details.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329] The Link Identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329],
or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203]. or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].
<Link Identifier> ::= <Link Identifier> ::=
<IPv4 Address> | <IPv6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID> <IPv4 Address> | <IPv6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>
The encoding of each case is as follows: The encoding of each case is as follows.
IPv4 Address Field
0 1 2 3 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 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 = 1 | Reserved (24 bits) | | Type = 1 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) | | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 Address Field Figure 5: IPv4 Address Field
0 1 2 3 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 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 = 2 | Reserved (24 bits) | | Type = 2 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Address Field Figure 6: IPv6 Address Field
0 1 2 3 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 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 = 3 | Reserved (24 bits) | | Type = 3 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID (32 bits) | | TE Node ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type (8 bits): It indicates the type of the link identifier. Figure 7: Unnumbered Interface ID Address Field
o Reserved (24 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be Type (8 bits): Indicates the type of the link identifier.
zeroed and ignored on receipt.
o Link Identifier: When Type field is 1, 4-bytes IPv4 address Reserved (24 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
is encoded; when Type field is 2, 16-bytes IPv6 address is ignored on receipt.
encoded; when Type field is 3, a tuple of 4-bytes TE node
ID and 4-bytes interface ID is encoded.
The Type field is extensible and matches to the IANA registry Link Identifier: When the Type field is 1, a 4-byte IPv4 address is
created for Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link encoded; when the Type field is 2, a 16-byte IPv6 address is
Object Class Type name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp- encoded; and when the Type field is 3, a tuple of a 4-byte TE node
parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15. See Section 8.14 ID and a 4-byte interface ID is encoded.
for the request to update the introductory text of the
aforementioned registry to note that the values have additional
usage for the Link Identifier Type field.
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field The Type field is extensible and matches the "TE_LINK Object Class
type name space (Value 11)" registry created for the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] (see [LMP-PARAM]). IANA has added an
introductory note before the aforementioned registry stating that the
values have additional usage for the Link Identifier Type field. See
Section 8.14.
The Wavelength Restriction Field of the Wavelength Restriction 4.3.2. Wavelength Constraint Field
Constraint TLV is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in
Section 2.6 in [RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC
label, defined in [RFC6205]. The Label Set format is repeated here
for convenience, with the base label internal structure included.
See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n, as
well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action.
0 1 2 3 The Wavelength Constraint field of the Wavelength Restriction TLV is
encoded as a Label Set Field as specified in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579]
with the base label encoded as a 32-bit LSC label, as defined in
[RFC6205]. The Label Set format is repeated here for convenience,
with the base label internal structure included. See [RFC6205] for a
description of Grid, Channel Spacing (C.S.), Identifier, and n, and
see [RFC7579] for the details of each action.
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action| Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: Wavelength Constraint Field
| Action| Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action (4 bits): Action (4 bits):
0: Inclusive List
0 - Inclusive List 1: Exclusive List
1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range 2: Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range 3: Exclusive Range
4 - Bitmap Set 4: Bitmap Set
Num Labels (12 bits): It is generally the number of labels. It has a Num Labels (12 bits):
specific meaning depending on the action value. It is generally the number of labels. It has a specific meaning
depending on the action value.
Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire Wavelength Length (16 bits):
Restriction field. It is the length in bytes of the entire Wavelength Constraint
field.
Identifier (9 bits): The Identifier is always set to 0. If PCC Identifier (9 bits):
receives the value of the identifier other than 0, it will ignore. The Identifier is always set to 0. If PCC receives the value of
the identifier other than 0, it will ignore.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional See Sections 2.6.1-2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional field
field discussion for each action. discussion for each action.
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions 4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions
Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing Path computation for WSON includes the checking of signal processing
capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE
MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at
each interface, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database each interface, e.g., by means of (TED) via either IGP or NMS.
(TED) either via IGP or Network Management System (NMS). Moreover, Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions to
a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions to signal signal processing compatibility, on either the endpoint or any given
processing compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link. link.
The supported signal processing capabilities considered in the RWA The supported signal processing capabilities considered in the RWA
Information Model [RFC7446] are: Information Model [RFC7446] are:
o Optical Interface Class List * Optical Interface Class List
o Bit Rate * Bit Rate
o Client Signal * Client Signal
The Bit Rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the The bit rate restriction is already expressed in the BANDWIDTH object
BANDWIDTH object. in [RFC8779].
In order to support the Optical Interface Class information and the In order to support the optical interface class information and the
Client Signal information new TLVs are introduced as endpoint- client signal information, new TLVs are introduced as endpoint
restriction in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint: restrictions in the END-POINTS type Generalized Endpoint:
o Client Signal TLV * Client Signal Information TLV
o Optical Interface Class List TLV * Optical Interface Class List TLV
The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows: The END-POINTS type Generalized Endpoint is extended as follows:
<endpoint-restriction> ::= <endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list> <LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction> <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>] [<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>| <label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>|
[<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>] [<Wavelength Restriction>]
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>]) [<signal-compatibility-restriction>])
Where
Where:
<signal-compatibility-restriction> ::= <signal-compatibility-restriction> ::=
[<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal>] [<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal Information>]
The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is defined in Section 4.3. The Wavelength Restriction TLV is defined in Section 4.3.
A new TLV for the Optical Interface Class List TLV (TBD5) is A new Optical Interface Class List TLV (Type 11) is defined; the
defined, and the encoding of the value part of the Optical Interface encoding of the value part of this TLV is described in Section 4.1 of
Class List TLV is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7581]. [RFC7581].
A new TLV for the Client Signal Information TLV (TBD6) is defined, A new Client Signal Information TLV (Type 12) is defined; the
and the encoding of the value part of the Client Signal Information encoding of the value part of this TLV is described in Section 4.2 of
TLV is described in Section 4.2 of [RFC7581]. [RFC7581].
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion 4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion
The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal
processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or
multi-domain path computation. [RFC5440] defines how Exclude Route multi-domain path computation. [RFC5521] defines how the Exclude
Object (XRO) subobject is used. In this draft, we add two new XRO Route Object (XRO) subobject is used. In this document, we add two
Signal Processing Exclusion Subobjects. new XRO Signal Processing Exclusion subobjects.
The first XRO subobject type (TBD9) is the Optical Interface Class The first XRO subobject type (8) is the Optical Interface Class List,
List Field defined as follows: which is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=TBD9 | Length | Reserved | Attribute | |X| Type=8 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optical Interface Class List // // Optical Interface Class List //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject Figure 9: Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Length and Attribute. Refer to [RFC5521] for the definitions of X, Length, and Attribute.
Type (7 bits): The Type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field. Type (7 bits): The type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion field.
The TLV Type value (TBD9) is to be assigned by the IANA for the IANA has assigned value 8 for the Optical Interface Class List XRO
Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject Type. subobject type.
Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and Reserved bits (8 bits): These are for future use and SHOULD be
ignored on receipt. zeroed and ignored on receipt.
The Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute Attribute (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute values; the
values; the only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 (Interface)
(Interface) or 1 (Node). or 1 (Node).
The Optical Interface Class List is encoded as described in Section Optical Interface Class List: This field is encoded as described in
4.1 of [RFC7581]. Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].
The second XRO subobject type (TBD10) is the Client Signal The second XRO subobject type (9) is the Client Signal Information,
Information defined as follows: which is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=TBD10 | Length | Reserved | Attribute | |X| Type=9 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Client Signal Information // // Client Signal Information //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Client Signal Information XRO Subobject
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Length and Attribute. Figure 10: Client Signal Information XRO Subobject
Type (7 bits): The Type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field. Refer to [RFC5521] for the definitions of X, Length, and Attribute.
The TLV Type value (TBD10) is to be assigned by the IANA for the
Client Signal Information XRO Subobject Type.
Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and Type (7 bits): The type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion field.
ignored on receipt. IANA has assigned value 9 for the Client Signal Information XRO
subobject type.
The Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute Reserved bits (8 bits): These are for future use and SHOULD be
values; the only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 zeroed and ignored on receipt.
(Interface) or 1 (Node).
The Client Signal Information is encoded as described in Section 4.2 Attribute (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute values; the
of [RFC7581]. only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 (Interface)
or 1 (Node).
The XRO needs to support the new Signaling Processing Exclusion XRO Client Signal Information: This field is encoded as described in
Subobject types: Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].
Type XRO Subobject Type The XRO needs to support the new Signaling Processing Exclusion XRO
subobject types:
TBD9 Optical Interface Class List 8: Optical Interface Class List
TBD10 Client Signal Information 9: Client Signal Information
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion 4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion
Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include
particular types of signal processing along the path in order to particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation. handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
[RFC5440] defines how Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is used. [RFC5440] defines how the Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is
In this draft, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion used. In this document, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion
Subobjects. subobjects.
The IRO needs to support the new IRO Subobject types (TBD11 and The IRO needs to support the new IRO subobject types (8 and 9) for
TBD12) for the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]: the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]:
Type IRO Subobject Type 8: Optical Interface Class List
TBD11 Optical Interface Class List
TBD12 Client Signal Information 9: Client Signal Information
The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is similar
similar to Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with 'L' to the process in Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with
field, all the other fields remains the same. The 'L' field is the 'L' field; all the other fields remain the same. The 'L' field
described in [RFC3209]. is described in [RFC3209].
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply 5. Encoding of an RWA Path Reply
This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for This section provides the encoding of an RWA Path Reply for a
wavelength allocation request as discussed in Section 4. wavelength allocation request as discussed in Section 4.
5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV 5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV
Recall that wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by Recall that wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by
different means: means of:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE (a) Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates which label
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the to use for each interface/node along the path.
path.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) A Label Set where the PCE provides a range of potential labels
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. to be allocated by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength allocation. signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.
The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See Section 8.4). Note The type for the Wavelength Allocation TLV is 10 (see Section 8.4).
that this TLV is used for both (a) and (b). The TLV data is defined Note that this TLV is used for both (a) and (b) above. The TLV data
as follows: is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flag |M| | Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier Field | | Link Identifier |
// . . . // // . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) | | Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use. Figure 11: Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o Flags (16 bits)
One flag bit is allocated as follows: Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use.
. M (Mode): 1 bit Flags field (16 bits): One flag bit is allocated as follows:
- 0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control. M (1 bit): Wavelength Allocation Mode.
- 1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.
IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Flag field (TBD14) of 0: Indicates the allocation relies on the use of Label Sets.
the Wavelength Allocation TLV.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same 1: Indicates the allocation is done using Explicit Label
type. Control.
o Link Identifier: Identifies the interface to which IANA has created a new registry to manage the Flags field of the
assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. for Wavelength Allocation TLV.
Link Identifier encoding.
o Allocated Wavelength(s): Indicates the allocated Link Identifier: Identifies the interface to which the assignment
wavelength(s) to be associated with the Link Identifier. See wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1 for encoding of the
Section 4.3.2 for encoding details. Link Identifier field.
This TLV is carried in a PCRep message as an attribute TLV [RFC5420] Allocated Wavelength(s): Indicates the allocated wavelength(s) to be
in the Hop Attribute Subobjects [RFC7570] in the ERO [RFC5440]. associated with the link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for
encoding details.
5.2. Error Indicator This TLV is carried in a PCRep message as an Attribute TLV [RFC5420]
in the Hop Attribute subobjects [RFC7570] in the Explicit Route
Object (ERO) [RFC5440].
To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type 5.2. Error Indicator
(TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error-Type
follows: 27 (WSON RWA Error) and subsequent Error-values are defined as
follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR object:
o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request * Error-Type=27; Error-value=1: If a PCE receives an RWA request and
and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error- PCEP-ERROR object with Error-Type=27 and Error-value=1. The PCE
value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The stops processing the request. The corresponding RWA request MUST
corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC. be canceled at the PCC.
o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request * Error-Type=27; Error-value=2: If a PCE receives an RWA request and
and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST send a
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR object with Error-Type=27 and
and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing Error-value=2. The PCE stops processing the request. The
the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be corresponding RWA computation MUST be canceled at the PCC.
cancelled at the PCC.
o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=3: if a PCE receives a RWA request * Error-Type=27; Error-value=3: If a PCE receives an RWA request and
and there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly two link
two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier types, no
types, no matching link for a given identifier, unknown Action matching link for a given identifier, unknown Action value, etc.),
value, etc.), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP- the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR object with
ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error- Error-Type=27 and Error-value=3.
value=3).
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator 5.3. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed. additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the This document defines a new bit flag to be carried in the Flags field
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object. in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, which is carried in the NO-PATH object:
o Bit TBD7: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was Bit 23: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was found that
found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength restriction, signal
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA. compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with Manageability of WSON RWA with PCE must address the considerations in
PCE must address the following considerations: the following subsections.
6.1. Control of Function and Policy 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC: following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
o The ability to send a WSON RWA request. * The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE: following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
o The support for WSON RWA. * The support for WSON RWA.
o A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender, * A set of WSON-RWA-specific policies (authorized sender, request
request rate limiter, etc). rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a session the PCEP speaker participates in, or they may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements, aside from those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. listed in Section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation 6.3. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in requirements, aside from those already listed in Section 8.4 of
section 8.4 of [RFC5440] [RFC5440].
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise WSON
WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
6.5. Impact on Network Operation 6.5. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in operation requirements, aside from those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440]. Section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
this document, this document does not introduce any new security this document; this document does not introduce any new security
issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information issues. If an operator wishes to keep the information distributed by
distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used. WSON private, PCEPS (Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for
PCEP) [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following allocations from the subregistries as described in the following
sections. sections.
8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object 8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP object is defined to carry
wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the wavelength-assignment-related constraints. IANA has allocated the
following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry following in the "PCEP Objects" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Object Class Name Object Reference +====================+======+==========================+===========+
Value Type | Object-Class Value | Name | Object-Type | Reference |
--------------------------------------------------------- +====================+======+==========================+===========+
| 42 | WA | 0: Reserved | RFC 8780 |
+--------------------+------+--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 1: Wavelength Assignment | RFC 8780 |
+--------------------+------+--------------------------+-----------+
TBD1 WA 1: Wavelength Assignment [This.I-D] Table 1
8.2. WA Object Flag Field 8.2. WA Object Flag Field
As described in Section 4.1, IANA is to create a registry to manage As described in Section 4.1, IANA has created the "WA Object Flag
the Flag field of the WA object. New values are to be assigned by Field" subregistry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol
Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the (PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS] to manage the Flags field of
following qualities: the WA object. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action
[RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) * Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description * Capability description
o Defining RFC * Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document: The initial contents of this registry are shown below. One bit has
been allocated for the flag defined in this document:
One bit is defined for the WA Object flag in this document: +======+============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+======+============================+===========+
| 0-14 | Unassigned | |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 15 | Wavelength Allocation Mode | RFC 8780 |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
Codespace of the Flag field (WA Object) Table 2
Bit Description Reference 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
-------------------------------------------------
0-14 Unassigned [This.I-D]
15 Explicit Label Control [This.I-D] In Section 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate wavelength
selection constraints. IANA has made the following allocation in the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV +=======+======================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+======================+===========+
| 8 | Wavelength Selection | RFC 8780 |
+-------+----------------------+-----------+
As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate Table 3
wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction TLV
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD2 Wavelength Selection [This.I-D]
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV In Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate wavelength
restrictions. IANA has made the following allocation in the "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate +=======+========================+===========+
wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV | Value | Description | Reference |
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry +=======+========================+===========+
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- | 9 | Wavelength Restriction | RFC 8780 |
indicators). +-------+------------------------+-----------+
Value Description Reference Table 4
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD3 Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D]
Constraint
8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values 8.5. Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values
As described in Section 4.3, IANA is to allocate a new registry to As described in Section 4.3, IANA has created the new "Wavelength
manage the Action values of the Action field in the Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values" subregistry under the "Path
Restriction Constraint TLV. New values are assigned by Standards Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS]
Action [RFC8126]. Each value should be tracked with the following to manage the Action values of the Action field of the Wavelength
qualities: value, meaning, and defining RFC. The following values Restriction TLV. New values are assigned by Standards Action
are defined in this document: [RFC8126]. Each value should be tracked with the following
qualities:
Value Meaning Reference * Value
--------------------------------------------------------- * Meaning
0 Inclusive List [This.I-D] * Defining RFC
1 Inclusive Range [This.I-D] The initial contents of this registry are shown below:
2-255 Reserved [This.I-D] +=======+=================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=================+===========+
| 0 | Inclusive List | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Inclusive Range | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
| 2-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV Table 5
As described in Section 5.1, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
the allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request
by the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference In Section 5.1, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the allocation
--------------------------------------------------------- of the wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request by the PCC.
TBD4 Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D] IANA has made the following allocation in "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field +=======+=======================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=======================+===========+
| 10 | Wavelength Allocation | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------------+-----------+
As described in Section 5.1, IANA is to allocate a registry to Table 6
manage the Flag field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values
are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should
be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) 8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field
o Capability description
o Defining RFC As described in Section 5.1, IANA has created a new "Wavelength
Allocation TLV Flag Field" subregistry under the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS] to manage
the Flags field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
One bit is defined for the Wavelength Allocation flag in this - * Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
document:
Codespace of the Flag field (Wavelength Allocation TLV) * Capability description
Bit Description Reference * Defining RFC
-------------------------------------------------
0-14 Unassigned [This.I-D]
15 Wavelength Allocation Mode [This.I-D] One bit is defined for the flag defined in this document. The
initial contents of this registry are shown below:
8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV +======+============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+======+============================+===========+
| 0-14 | Unassigned | |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 15 | Wavelength Allocation Mode | RFC 8780 |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
As described in Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate Table 7
the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference 8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD5 Optical Interface [This.I-D]
Class List
8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV In Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the Optical
Interface Class List. IANA has made the following allocation in the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
As described in Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate +=======+==============================+===========+
the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from | Value | Description | Reference |
the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry +=======+==============================+===========+
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- | 11 | Optical Interface Class List | RFC 8780 |
indicators). +-------+------------------------------+-----------+
Value Description Reference Table 8
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD6 Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.10. New No-Path Reasons 8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal Information TLV
As described in Section 5.3, a new bit flag are defined to be In Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the Client
carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the Signal Information. IANA has made the following allocation in the
NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
computation request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR +=======+===========================+===========+
TLV Flag Field" subregistry | Value | Description | Reference |
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector- +=======+===========================+===========+
tlv). | 12 | Client Signal Information | RFC 8780 |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
Bit Description Reference Table 9
-----------------------------------------------------
TBD7 No RWA constraints met [This.I-D]
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values 8.10. New Bit Flag for NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
As described in Section 5.2, new PCEP error codes are defined for In Section 5.3, a new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags
WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV, which is carried in the NO-PATH
Error Types and Values" sub-registry object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible route was
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object). found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with an RWA path
computation request.
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference IANA has made the following allocation for this new bit flag in the
Type "NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
---------------------------------------------------------------
TBD8 WSON RWA Error 0: Unassigned [This.I-D] +=====+========================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+========================+===========+
| 23 | No RWA constraints met | RFC 8780 |
+-----+------------------------+-----------+
1: Insufficient [This.I-D] Table 10
Memory
2: RWA computation [This.I-D] 8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values
Not supported
3: Syntactical [This.I-D] In Section 5.2, new PCEP error codes are defined for WSON RWA errors.
Encoding error IANA has made the following allocations in the "PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
4-255: Unassigned [This.I-D] +============+================+========================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+================+========================+===========+
| 27 | WSON RWA error | 0: Unassigned | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 1: Insufficient memory | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 2: RWA computation not | RFC 8780 |
| | | supported | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 3: Syntactical | RFC 8780 |
| | | encoding error | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 4-255: Unassigned | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object Table 11
As described in Section 4.4.1, the "PCEP Parameters" registry 8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object
contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Exclude
Route Object (XRO). IANA is requested to add further subobjects that
can be carried in the XRO as follows:
Subobject Type Reference The "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
contains a subregistry titled "XRO Subobjects" [PCEP-NUMBERS]. Per
Section 4.4.1, IANA has added the following subobjects that can be
carried in the XRO:
---------------------------------------------------------- +=======+==============================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+==============================+===========+
| 8 | Optical Interface Class List | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | Client Signal Information | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
TBD9 Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D] Table 12
TBD10 Client Signal Information [This.I-D] 8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object
8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object The "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
contains a subregistry titled "IRO Subobjects" [PCEP-NUMBERS]. Per
Section 4.4.2, IANA has added the following subobjects that can be
carried in the IRO:
As described in Section 4.4.2, the "PCEP Parameters" registry +=======+==============================+===========+
contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Include | Value | Description | Reference |
Route Object (IRO). IANA is requested to add further subobjects that +=======+==============================+===========+
can be carried in the IRO as follows: | 8 | Optical Interface Class List | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | Client Signal Information | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
Subobject Type Reference Table 13
---------------------------------------------------------- 8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
TBD11 Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D] The "TE_LINK Object Class type name space (Value 11)" registry was
created for the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. As
discussed in Section 4.3.1, IANA has added the following note at the
top of the "TE_LINK Object Class type name space (Value 11)" registry
[LMP-PARAM]:
TBD12 Client Signal Information [This.I-D] These values have additional usage for the Link Identifier Type
field.
8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type 9. References
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the registry created for Link 9.1. Normative References
Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link Object Class Type
name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-
parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15 is requested for the updated
introductory note that the values have additional usage for the Link
Identifier Type field.
9. Acknowledgments [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric, Dhruv [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Dhody and Benjamin Kaduk for many helpful comments that greatly and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
improved the contents of this draft. Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
10. References [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
10.1. Normative References [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
RFC 3209, December 2001. RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) [RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008. J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC7581] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, J. Han, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information
March 2009. Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
RFC 7581, DOI 10.17487/RFC7581, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7581>.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- [RFC7688] Lee, Y., Ed. and G. Bernstein, Ed., "GMPLS OSPF
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
January, 2011. for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7688, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7688>.
[RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute [RFC7689] Bernstein, G., Ed., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Ed., Martinelli, G.,
in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015. and H. Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7689, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7689>.
[RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
7579, June 2015. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015. Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength [RFC8779] Margaria, C., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., and F.
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015. Zhang, Ed., "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS", RFC 8779,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8779, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8779>.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and 9.2. Informative References
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.
[RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 [LMP-PARAM]
Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017. IANA, "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/>.
[RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS: [PCEP-LS] Lee, Y., Zheng, H., Ceccarelli, D., Wang, W., Park, P.,
Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path and B. Yoon, "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC State and TE information for Optical Networks", Work in
8253, October 2017. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical-
09, 9 March 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical-09>.
[PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", [PCEP-NUMBERS]
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress. IANA, "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
3471. January 2003. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005,
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4204>.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204, [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
October 2005. Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur, G. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP [RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009. Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
2009.[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel, Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
2009.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku, [RFC6566] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Li, D., and G.
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Martinelli, "A Framework for the Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011. Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) with Impairments",
RFC 6566, DOI 10.17487/RFC6566, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6566>.
[RFC6566] Lee, Y. and Berstein, G. (Editors), "A Framework for the [RFC7446] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Li, D., and W. Imajuku,
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for
with Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012. Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7446, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7446>.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, (Editors), "Routing and Wavelength [RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015. Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.
[RFC7449] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, (Editors), "Path Computation Element [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link- Acknowledgments
State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress.
[RFC8126] M. Cotton, B. Leiba, T,.Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric, Dhruv
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126, June 2017. Dhody, and Benjamin Kaduk for many helpful comments that greatly
improved the contents of this document.
11. Contributors Contributors
Fatai Zhang Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria Cyril Margaria
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
St Martin Strasse 76 St. Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541 81541 Munich
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6 C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043 28043 Madrid
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013 Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: ogondio@tid.es
Greg Bernstein Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA, USA Fremont, CA
Phone: (510) 573-2237 United States of America
Phone: +1 510 573 2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor Young Lee (editor)
Huawei Technologies Samsung Electronics
5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 600
Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas, Editor Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com
CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) Ramon Casellas, Editor (editor)
CTTC
Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
PMT Ed B4 Av.
08860 Castelldefels Barcelona
Spain Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916
Phone: +34 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
 End of changes. 315 change blocks. 
772 lines changed or deleted 844 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/