[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-ietf-ccamp-wavelength-switched-framework)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 RFC 6163
Network Working Group Y. Lee (ed.)
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein (ed.)
Expires: August 2011 Grotto Networking
Wataru Imajuku
NTT
February 8, 2011
Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical
Networks (WSON)
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-12.txt
Abstract
This document provides a framework for applying Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element
(PCE) architecture to the control of wavelength switched optical
networks (WSON). In particular, it examines Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) of optical paths.
This document focuses on topological elements and path selection
constraints that are common across different WSON environments as
such it does not address optical impairments in any depth.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4
2. Terminology....................................................5
3. Wavelength Switched Optical Networks...........................6
3.1. WDM and CWDM Links........................................6
3.2. Optical Transmitters and Receivers........................8
3.3. Optical Signals in WSONs..................................9
3.3.1. Optical Tributary Signals...........................10
3.3.2. WSON Signal Characteristics.........................10
3.4. ROADMs, OXCs, Splitters, Combiners and FOADMs............11
3.4.1. Reconfigurable Add/Drop Multiplexers and OXCs.......11
3.4.2. Splitters...........................................14
3.4.3. Combiners...........................................15
3.4.4. Fixed Optical Add/Drop Multiplexers.................15
3.5. Electro-Optical Systems..................................16
3.5.1. Regenerators........................................16
3.5.2. OEO Switches........................................19
3.6. Wavelength Converters....................................19
3.6.1. Wavelength Converter Pool Modeling..................21
3.7. Characterizing Electro-Optical Network Elements..........25
3.7.1. Input Constraints...................................26
3.7.2. Output Constraints..................................26
3.7.3. Processing Capabilities.............................27
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
4. Routing and Wavelength Assignment and the Control Plane.......28
4.1. Architectural Approaches to RWA..........................28
4.1.1. Combined RWA (R&WA).................................29
4.1.2. Separated R and WA (R+WA)...........................29
4.1.3. Routing and Distributed WA (R+DWA)..................30
4.2. Conveying information needed by RWA......................30
5. Modeling Examples and Control Plane Use Cases.................31
5.1. Network Modeling for GMPLS/PCE Control...................31
5.1.1. Describing the WSON nodes...........................32
5.1.2. Describing the links................................34
5.2. RWA Path Computation and Establishment...................35
5.3. Resource Optimization....................................36
5.4. Support for Rerouting....................................37
5.5. Electro-Optical Networking Scenarios.....................37
5.5.1. Fixed Regeneration Points...........................37
5.5.2. Shared Regeneration Pools...........................38
5.5.3. Reconfigurable Regenerators.........................38
5.5.4. Relation to Translucent Networks....................38
6. GMPLS and PCE Implications....................................39
6.1. Implications for GMPLS signaling.........................39
6.1.1. Identifying Wavelengths and Signals.................39
6.1.2. WSON Signals and Network Element Processing.........40
6.1.3. Combined RWA/Separate Routing WA support............40
6.1.4. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Unidirectional, No
Converters.................................................41
6.1.5. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Unidirectional,
Limited Converters.........................................41
6.1.6. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Bidirectional, No
Converters.................................................41
6.2. Implications for GMPLS Routing...........................42
6.2.1. Electro-Optical Element Signal Compatibility........42
6.2.2. Wavelength-Specific Availability Information........43
6.2.3. WSON Routing Information Summary....................43
6.3. Optical Path Computation and Implications for PCE........45
6.3.1. Optical path Constraints and Characteristics........45
6.3.2. Electro-Optical Element Signal Compatibility........45
6.3.3. Discovery of RWA Capable PCEs.......................46
7. Security Considerations.......................................46
8. IANA Considerations...........................................47
9. Acknowledgments...............................................47
10. References...................................................48
10.1. Normative References....................................48
10.2. Informative References..................................49
11. Contributors.................................................51
Author's Addresses...............................................52
Intellectual Property Statement..................................52
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................53
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
1. Introduction
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) are constructed from
subsystems that include Wavelength Division Multiplexed (WDM) links,
tunable transmitters and receivers, Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop
Multiplexers (ROADM), wavelength converters, and electro-optical
network elements. A WSON is a WDM-based optical network in which
switching is performed selectively based on the center wavelength of
an optical signal.
WSONs can differ from other types of GMPLS networks in that many
types of WSON nodes are highly asymmetric with respect to their
switching capabilities, compatibility of signal types and network
elements may need to be considered, and label assignment can be non-
local. In order to provision an optical connection (an optical path)
through a WSON certain wavelength continuity and resource
availability constraints must be met to determine viable and optimal
paths through the WSON. The determination of paths is known as
Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA).
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] includes
an architecture and a set of control plane protocols that can be used
to operate data networks ranging from packet switch capable networks,
through those networks that use time division multiplexing, to WDM
networks. The Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture [RFC4655]
defines functional components that can be used to compute and suggest
appropriate paths in connection-oriented traffic-engineered networks.
This document provides a framework for applying the GMPLS
architecture and protocols [RFC3945], and the PCE architecture
[RFC4655] to the control and operation of WSONs. To aid in this
process this document also provides an overview of the subsystems and
processes that comprise WSONs, and describes RWA so that the
information requirements, both static and dynamic, can be identified
to explain how the information can be modeled for use by GMPLS and
PCE systems. This work will facilitate the development of protocol
solution models and protocol extensions within the GMPLS and PCE
protocol families.
Different WSONs such as access, metro, and long haul may apply
different techniques for dealing with optical impairments hence this
document does not address optical impairments in any depth. Note that
this document focuses on the generic properties of links, switches
and path selection constraints that occur in many types of WSONs.
See [WSON-Imp] for more information on optical impairments and GMPLS.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
2. Terminology
Add/Drop Multiplexers (ADM): An optical device used in WDM networks
composed of one or more line side ports and typically many tributary
ports.
CWDM: Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing.
DWDM: Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing.
Degree: The degree of an optical device (e.g., ROADM) is given by a
count of its line side ports.
Drop and continue: A simple multi-cast feature of some ADM where a
selected wavelength can be switched out of both a tributary (drop)
port and a line side port.
FOADM: Fixed Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer.
GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
Line side: In WDM system line side ports and links typically can
carry the full multiplex of wavelength signals, as compared to
tributary (add or drop ports) that typically carry a few (typically
one) wavelength signals.
OXC: Optical cross connect. An optical switching element in which a
signal on any input port can reach any output port.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by the Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
PCEP: PCE Communication Protocol. The communication protocol between
a Path Computation Client and Path Computation Element.
ROADM: Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer. A wavelength
selective switching element featuring input and output line side
ports as well as add/drop tributary ports.
RWA: Routing and Wavelength Assignment.
Transparent Network: A wavelength switched optical network that does
not contain regenerators or wavelength converters.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Translucent Network: A wavelength switched optical network that is
predominantly transparent but may also contain limited numbers of
regenerators and/or wavelength converters.
Tributary: A link or port on a WDM system that can carry
significantly less than the full multiplex of wavelength signals
found on the line side links/ports. Typical tributary ports are the
add and drop ports on an ADM and these support only a single
wavelength channel.
Wavelength Conversion/Converters: The process of converting an
information bearing optical signal centered at a given wavelength to
one with "equivalent" content centered at a different wavelength.
Wavelength conversion can be implemented via an optical-electronic-
optical (OEO) process or via a strictly optical process.
WDM: Wavelength Division Multiplexing.
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs): WDM based optical
networks in which switching is performed selectively based on the
center wavelength of an optical signal.
3. Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
WSONs range in size from continent spanning long haul networks, to
metropolitan networks, to residential access networks. In all these
cases, the main concern is those properties that constrain the choice
of wavelengths that can be used, i.e., restrict the wavelength label
set, impact the path selection process, and limit the topological
connectivity. In addition, if electro-optical network elements are
used in the WSON, additional compatibility constraints may be imposed
by the network elements on various optical signal parameters. The
subsequent sections review and model some of the major subsystems of
a WSON with an emphasis on those aspects that are of relevance to the
control plane. In particular, WDM links, optical transmitters,
ROADMs, and wavelength converters are examined.
3.1. WDM and CWDM Links
WDM and CWDM links run over optical fibers, and optical fibers come
in a wide range of types that tend to be optimized for various
applications. Examples include access networks, metro, long haul, and
submarine links. International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) standards exist for
various types of fibers. Although fiber can be categorized into
Single mode fibers (SMF) and Multi-mode fibers (MMF), the latter are
typically used for short-reach campus and premise applications. SMF
are used for longer-reach applications and therefore are the primary
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
concern of this document. The following SMF fiber types are typically
encountered in optical networks:
ITU-T Standard | Common Name
------------------------------------------------------------
G.652 [G.652] | Standard SMF |
G.653 [G.653] | Dispersion shifted SMF |
G.654 [G.654] | Cut-off shifted SMF |
G.655 [G.655] | Non-zero dispersion shifted SMF |
G.656 [G.656] | Wideband non-zero dispersion shifted SMF |
------------------------------------------------------------
Typically WDM links operate in one or more of the approximately
defined optical bands [G.Sup39]:
Band Range (nm) Common Name Raw Bandwidth (THz)
O-band 1260-1360 Original 17.5
E-band 1360-1460 Extended 15.1
S-band 1460-1530 Short 9.4
C-band 1530-1565 Conventional 4.4
L-band 1565-1625 Long 7.1
U-band 1625-1675 Ultra-long 5.5
Not all of a band may be usable, for example in many fibers that
support E-band there is significant attenuation due to a water
absorption peak at 1383nm. Hence a discontinuous acceptable
wavelength range for a particular link may be needed and is modeled.
Also some systems will utilize more than one band. This is
particularly true for CWDM systems.
Current technology subdivides the bandwidth capacity of fibers into
distinct channels based on either wavelength or frequency. There are
two standards covering wavelengths and channel spacing. ITU-T
Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM applications: DWDM
frequency grid [G.694.1] describes a DWDM grid defined in terms of
frequency grids of 12.5GHz, 25GHz, 50GHz, 100GHz, and other multiples
of 100GHz around a 193.1THz center frequency. At the narrowest
channel spacing this provides less than 4800 channels across the O
through U bands. ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid [G.694.2] describes a CWDM grid
defined in terms of wavelength increments of 20nm running from 1271nm
to 1611nm for 18 or so channels. The number of channels is
significantly smaller than the 32 bit GMPLS label space defined for
GMPLS, see [RFC3471]. A label representation for these ITU-T grids
is given in [Otani] and provides a common label format to be used in
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
signaling optical paths. Further, these ITU-T grid based labels can
also be used to describe WDM links, ROADM ports, and wavelength
converters for the purposes of path selection.
Many WDM links are designed to take advantage of particular fiber
characteristics or to try to avoid undesirable properties. For
example dispersion shifted SMF [G.653] was originally designed for
good long distance performance in single channel systems, however
putting WDM over this type of fiber requires significant system
engineering and a fairly limited range of wavelengths. Hence the
following information is needed as parameters to perform basic,
impairment unaware, modeling of a WDM link:
o Wavelength range(s): Given a mapping between labels and the ITU-T
grids each range could be expressed in terms of a tuple (lambda1,
lambda2) or (freq1, freq1) where the lambdas or frequencies can be
represented by 32 bit integers.
o Channel spacing: Currently there are five channel spacings used in
DWDM systems and a single channel spacing defined for CWDM
systems.
For a particular link this information is relatively static, as
changes to these properties generally require hardware upgrades. Such
information may be used locally during wavelength assignment via
signaling, similar to label restrictions in MPLS or used by a PCE in
providing combined RWA.
3.2. Optical Transmitters and Receivers
WDM optical systems make use of optical transmitters and receivers
utilizing different wavelengths (frequencies). Some transmitters are
manufactured for a specific wavelength of operation, that is, the
manufactured frequency cannot be changed. First introduced to reduce
inventory costs, tunable optical transmitters and receivers are
deployed in some systems, and allow flexibility in the wavelength
used for optical transmission/reception. Such tunable optics aid in
path selection.
Fundamental modeling parameters from the control plane perspective
optical transmitters and receivers are:
o Tunable: Do the transmitter and receivers operate at variable or
fixed wavelength.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
o Tuning range: This is the frequency or wavelength range over which
the optics can be tuned. With the fixed mapping of labels to
lambdas as proposed in [Otani] this can be expressed as a tuple
(lambda1, lambda2) or (freq1, freq2) where lambda1 and lambda2 or
freq1 and freq2 are the labels representing the lower and upper
bounds in wavelength.
o Tuning time: Tuning times highly depend on the technology used.
Thermal drift based tuning may take seconds to stabilize, whilst
electronic tuning might provide sub-ms tuning times. Depending on
the application this might be critical. For example, thermal drift
might not be usable for fast protection applications.
o Spectral characteristics and stability: The spectral shape of a
laser's emissions and its frequency stability put limits on
various properties of the overall WDM system. One relatively easy
to characterize constraint is the closest channel spacing with
which the transmitter can be used.
Note that ITU-T recommendations specify many aspects of an optical
transmitter. Many of these parameters, such as spectral
characteristics and stability, are used in the design of WDM
subsystems consisting of transmitters, WDM links and receivers
however they do not furnish additional information that will
influence the Label Switched Path (LSP) provisioning in a properly
designed system.
Also note that optical components can degrade and fail over time.
This presents the possibility of the failure of a LSP (optical path)
without either a node or link failure. Hence, additional mechanisms
may be necessary to detect and differentiate this failure from the
others, e.g., one doesn't want to initiate mesh restoration if the
source transmitter has failed, since the optical transmitter will
still be failed on the alternate optical path.
3.3. Optical Signals in WSONs
In WSONs the fundamental unit of switching is intuitively that of a
"wavelength". The transmitters and receivers in these networks will
deal with one wavelength at a time, while the switching systems
themselves can deal with multiple wavelengths at a time. Hence
multichannel DWDM networks with single channel interfaces are the
prime focus of this document as opposed to multi-channel interfaces.
Interfaces of this type are defined in ITU-T recommendations
[G.698.1] and [G.698.2]. Key non-impairment related parameters
defined in [G.698.1] and [G.698.2] are:
(a) Minimum channel spacing (GHz)
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
(b) Minimum and maximum central frequency
(c) Bit-rate/Line coding (modulation) of optical tributary signals
For the purposes of modeling the WSON in the control plane, (a) and
(b) are considered as properties of the link and restrictions on the
GMPLS labels while (c) is a property of the "signal".
3.3.1. Optical Tributary Signals
The optical interface specifications [G.698.1], [G.698.2], and
[G.959.1] all use the concept of an optical tributary signal which is
defined as "a single channel signal that is placed within an optical
channel for transport across the optical network". Note the use of
the qualifier "tributary" to indicate that this is a single channel
entity and not a multichannel optical signal.
There are currently a number of different types of optical tributary
signals, which are known as "optical tributary signal classes". These
are currently characterized by a modulation format and bit rate range
[G.959.1]:
(a) Optical tributary signal class NRZ 1.25G
(b) Optical tributary signal class NRZ 2.5G
(c) Optical tributary signal class NRZ 10G
(d) Optical tributary signal class NRZ 40G
(e) Optical tributary signal class RZ 40G
Note that with advances in technology more optical tributary signal
classes may be added and that this is currently an active area for
development and standardization. In particular at the 40G rate there
are a number of non-standardized advanced modulation formats that
have seen significant deployment including Differential Phase Shift
Keying (DPSK) and Phase Shaped Binary Transmission (PSBT).
According to [G.698.2] it is important to fully specify the bit rate
of the optical tributary signal. Hence it is seen that modulation
format (optical tributary signal class) and bit rate are key
parameters in characterizing the optical tributary signal.
3.3.2. WSON Signal Characteristics
An optical tributary signal referenced in ITU-T [G.698.1] and
[G.698.2] is referred to as the "signal" in this document. This
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
corresponds to the "lambda" LSP in GMPLS. For signal compatibility
purposes with electro-optical network elements, the following signal
characteristics are considered:
1. Optical tributary signal class (modulation format).
2. FEC: whether forward error correction is used in the digital stream
and what type of error correcting code is used.
3. Center frequency (wavelength).
4. Bit rate.
5. G-PID: general protocol identifier for the information format.
The first three items on this list can change as a WSON signal
traverses the optical network with elements that include
regenerators, Optical-to-Electrical (OEO) switches, or wavelength
converters.
Bit rate and G-PID would not change since they describe the encoded
bit stream. A set of G-PID values is already defined for lambda
switching in [RFC3471] and [RFC4328].
Note that a number of non-standard or proprietary modulation formats
and FEC codes are commonly used in WSONs. For some digital bit
streams the presence of Forward Error Correction (FEC) can be
detected, e.g., in [G.707] this is indicated in the signal itself via
the FEC Status Indication (FSI) byte, while in [G.709] this can be
inferred from whether the FEC field of the Optical Channel Transport
Unit-k (OTUk) is all zeros or not.
3.4. ROADMs, OXCs, Splitters, Combiners and FOADMs
Definitions of various optical devices such as ROADMs, Optical Cross-
connects (OXCs), splitters, combiners and Fixed Optical Add-Drop
Multiplexers (FOADMs) and their parameters can be found in [G.671].
Only a subset of these relevant to the control plane and their non-
impairment related properties are considered in the following
sections.
3.4.1. Reconfigurable Add/Drop Multiplexers and OXCs
ROADMs are available in different forms and technologies. This is a
key technology that allows wavelength based optical switching. A
classic degree-2 ROADM is shown in Figure 1.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Line side input +---------------------+ Line side output
--->| |--->
| |
| ROADM |
| |
| |
+---------------------+
| | | | o o o o
| | | | | | | |
O O O O | | | |
Tributary Side: Drop (output) Add (input)
Figure 1. Degree-2 unidirectional ROADM
The key feature across all ROADM types is their highly asymmetric
switching capability. In the ROADM of Figure 1, signals introduced
via the add ports can only be sent on the line side output port and
not on any of the drop ports. The term "degree" is used to refer to
the number of line side ports (input and output) of a ROADM, and does
not include the number of "add" or "drop" ports. The add and drop
ports are sometimes also called tributary ports. As the degree of the
ROADM increases beyond two it can have properties of both a switch
(OXC) and a multiplexer and hence it is necessary to know the
switched connectivity offered by such a network element to
effectively utilize it. A straightforward way to represent this is
via a "switched connectivity" matrix A where Amn = 0 or 1, depending
upon whether a wavelength on input port m can be connected to output
port n [Imajuku]. For the ROADM shown in Figure 1 the switched
connectivity matrix can be expressed as:
Input Output Port
Port #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
--------------
#1: 1 1 1 1 1
#2 1 0 0 0 0
A = #3 1 0 0 0 0
#4 1 0 0 0 0
#5 1 0 0 0 0
Where input ports 2-5 are add ports, output ports 2-5 are drop ports
and input port #1 and output port #1 are the line side (WDM) ports.
For ROADMs, this matrix will be very sparse, and for OXCs the matrix
will be very dense. Compact encodings and examples, including high
degree ROADMs/OXCs, are given in [Gen-Encode]. A degree-4 ROADM is
shown in Figure 2.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+-----------------------+
Line side-1 --->| |---> Line side-2
Input (I1) | | Output (E2)
Line side-1 <---| |<--- Line side-2
Output (E1) | | Input (I2)
| ROADM |
Line side-3 --->| |---> Line side-4
Input (I3) | | Output (E4)
Line side-3 <---| |<--- Line side-4
Output (E3) | | Input (I4)
| |
+-----------------------+
| O | O | O | O
| | | | | | | |
O | O | O | O |
Tributary Side: E5 I5 E6 I6 E7 I7 E8 I8
Figure 2. Degree-4 bidirectional ROADM
Note that this example is 4-degree example with one (potentially
multi-channel) add/drop per line side port.
Note also that the connectivity constraints for typical ROADM designs
are "bidirectional", i.e. if input port X can be connected to output
port Y, typically input port Y can be connected to output port X,
assuming the numbering is done in such a way that input X and output
X correspond to the same line side direction or the same add/drop
port. This makes the connectivity matrix symmetrical as shown below.
Input Output Port
Port E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8
-----------------------
I1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
I2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
A = I3 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
I4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
I5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
I6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
I8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Where I5/E5 are add/drop ports to/from line side-3, I6/E6 are
add/drop ports to/from line side-1, I7/E7 are add/drop ports to/from
line side-2 and I8/E8 are add/drop ports to/from line side-4. Note
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
that diagonal elements are zero since loopback is not supported in
the example. If ports support loopback, diagonal elements would be
set to one.
Additional constraints may also apply to the various ports in a
ROADM/OXC. The following restrictions and terms may be used:
Colored port: an input or more typically an output (drop) port
restricted to a single channel of fixed wavelength.
Colorless port: an input or more typically an output (drop) port
restricted to a single channel of arbitrary wavelength.
In general a port on a ROADM could have any of the following
wavelength restrictions:
o Multiple wavelengths, full range port.
o Single wavelength, full range port.
o Single wavelength, fixed lambda port.
o Multiple wavelengths, reduced range port (for example wave band
switching).
To model these restrictions it is necessary to have two pieces of
information for each port: (a) number of wavelengths, (b) wavelength
range and spacing. Note that this information is relatively static.
More complicated wavelength constraints are modeled in [WSON-Info].
3.4.2. Splitters
An optical splitter consists of a single input port and two or more
output ports. The input optical signaled is essentially copied (with
power loss) to all output ports.
Using the modeling notions of Section 3.4.1. (Reconfigurable Add/Drop
Multiplexers and OXCs) the input and output ports of a splitter would
have the same wavelength restrictions. In addition a splitter is
modeled by a connectivity matrix Amn as follows:
Input Output Port
Port #1 #2 #3 ... #N
-----------------
A = #1 1 1 1 ... 1
The difference from a simple ROADM is that this is not a switched
connectivity matrix but the fixed connectivity matrix of the device.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
3.4.3. Combiners
An optical combiner is a device that combines the optical wavelengths
carried by multiple input ports into a single multi-wavelength output
port. The various ports may have different wavelength restrictions.
It is generally the responsibility of those using the combiner to
assure that wavelength collision does not occur on the output port.
The fixed connectivity matrix Amn for a combiner would look like:
Input Output Port
Port #1
---
#1: 1
#2 1
A = #3 1
... 1
#N 1
3.4.4. Fixed Optical Add/Drop Multiplexers
A fixed optical add/drop multiplexer can alter the course of an input
wavelength in a preset way. In particular a given wavelength (or
waveband) from a line side input port would be dropped to a fixed
"tributary" output port. Depending on the device's construction that
same wavelength may or may not also be sent out the line side output
port. This is commonly referred to as "drop and continue" operation.
There also may exist tributary input ports ("add" ports) whose
signals are combined with each other and other line side signals.
In general, to represent the routing properties of an FOADM it is
necessary to have both a fixed connectivity matrix Amn as previously
discussed and the precise wavelength restrictions for all input and
output ports. From the wavelength restrictions on the tributary
output ports, what wavelengths have been selected can be derived.
From the wavelength restrictions on the tributary input ports, it can
be seen which wavelengths have been added to the line side output
port. Finally from the added wavelength information and the line side
output wavelength restrictions it can be inferred which wavelengths
have been continued.
To summarize, the modeling methodology introduced in Section 3.4.1.
(Reconfigurable Add/Drop Multiplexers and OXCs) consisting of a
connectivity matrix and port wavelength restrictions can be used to
describe a large set of fixed optical devices such as combiners,
splitters and FOADMs. Hybrid devices consisting of both switched and
fixed parts are modeled in [WSON-Info].
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
3.5. Electro-Optical Systems
This section describes how Electro-Optical Systems (e.g., OEO
switches, wavelength converters, and regenerators) interact with the
WSON signal characteristics listed in Section 3.3.2. (WSON Signal
Characteristics) OEO switches, wavelength converters and regenerators
all share a similar property: they can be more or less "transparent"
to an "optical signal" depending on their functionality and/or
implementation. Regenerators have been fairly well characterized in
this regard and hence their properties can be described first.
3.5.1. Regenerators
The various approaches to regeneration are discussed in ITU-T G.872
Annex A [G.872]. They map a number of functions into the so-called
1R, 2R and 3R categories of regenerators as summarized in Table 1
below:
Table 1. Regenerator functionality mapped to general regenerator
classes from [G.872].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1R | Equal amplification of all frequencies within the amplification
| bandwidth. There is no restriction upon information formats.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Amplification with different gain for frequencies within the
| amplification bandwidth. This could be applied to both single-
| channel and multi-channel systems.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Dispersion compensation (phase distortion). This analogue
| process can be applied in either single-channel or multi-
| channel systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2R | Any or all 1R functions. Noise suppression.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Digital reshaping (Schmitt Trigger function) with no clock
| recovery. This is applicable to individual channels and can be
| used for different bit rates but is not transparent to line
| coding (modulation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3R | Any or all 1R and 2R functions. Complete regeneration of the
| pulse shape including clock recovery and retiming within
| required jitter limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From this table it is seen that 1R regenerators are generally
independent of signal modulation format (also known as line coding),
but may work over a limited range of wavelength/frequencies. 2R
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
regenerators are generally applicable to a single digital stream and
are dependent upon modulation format (line coding) and to a lesser
extent are limited to a range of bit rates (but not a specific bit
rate). Finally, 3R regenerators apply to a single channel, are
dependent upon the modulation format and generally sensitive to the
bit rate of digital signal, i.e., either are designed to only handle
a specific bit rate or need to be programmed to accept and regenerate
a specific bit rate. In all these types of regenerators the digital
bit stream contained within the optical or electrical signal is not
modified.
It is common for regenerators to modify the digital bit stream for
performance monitoring and fault management purposes. Synchronous
Optical Networking (SONET), Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) and
Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (G.709) all have digital
signal "envelopes" designed to be used between "regenerators" (in
this case 3R regenerators). In SONET this is known as the "section"
signal, in SDH this is known as the "regenerator section" signal, in
G.709 this is known as an OTUk. These signals reserve a portion of
their frame structure (known as overhead) for use by regenerators.
The nature of this overhead is summarized in Table 2 below.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Table 2. SONET, SDH, and G.709 regenerator related overhead.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Function | SONET/SDH | G.709 OTUk |
| | Regenerator | |
| | Section | |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Signal | J0 (section | Trail Trace |
|Identifier | trace) | Identifier (TTI) |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Performance | BIP-8 (B1) | BIP-8 (within SM) |
|Monitoring | | |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Management | D1-D3 bytes | GCC0 (general |
|Communications | | communications |
| | | channel) |
|------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Fault Management | A1, A2 framing | FAS (frame alignment |
| | bytes | signal), BDI(backward|
| | | defect indication)BEI|
| | | (backward error |
| | | indication) |
+------------------+----------------------+-----------------------|
|Forward Error | P1,Q1 bytes | OTUk FEC |
|Correction (FEC) | | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
In the previous table it is seen that frame alignment, signal
identification, and FEC are supported. What table 2 also shows by its
omission is that no switching or multiplexing occurs at this layer.
This is a significant simplification for the control plane since
control plane standards require a multi-layer approach when there are
multiple switching layers, but not for "layering" to provide the
management functions of Table 2. That is, many existing technologies
covered by GMPLS contain extra management related layers that are
essentially ignored by the control plane (though not by the
management plane!). Hence, the approach here is to include
regenerators and other devices at the WSON layer unless they provide
higher layer switching and then a multi-layer or multi-region
approach [RFC5212] is called for. However, this can result in
regenerators having a dependence on the client signal type.
Hence depending upon the regenerator technology the following
constraints may be imposed by a regenerator device:
Table 3. Regenerator Compatibility Constraints.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Constraints | 1R | 2R | 3R |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Limited Wavelength Range | x | x | x |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Modulation Type Restriction | | x | x |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Bit Rate Range Restriction | | x | x |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Exact Bit Rate Restriction | | | x |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Client Signal Dependence | | | x |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Note that the limited wavelength range constraint can be modeled for
GMPLS signaling with the label set defined in [RFC3471] and that the
modulation type restriction constraint includes FEC.
3.5.2. OEO Switches
A common place where OEO processing may take place is within WSON
switches that utilize (or contain) regenerators. This may be to
convert the signal to an electronic form for switching then
reconverting to an optical signal prior to output from the switch.
Another common technique is to add regenerators to restore signal
quality either before or after optical processing (switching). In
the former case the regeneration is applied to adapt the signal to
the switch fabric regardless of whether or not it is needed from a
signal quality perspective.
In either case these optical switches have essentially the same
compatibility constraints as those which are described for
regenerators in Table 3.
3.6. Wavelength Converters
Wavelength converters take an input optical signal at one wavelength
and emit an equivalent content optical signal at another wavelength
on output. There are multiple approaches to building wavelength
converters. One approach is based on OEO conversion with fixed or
tunable optics on output. This approach can be dependent upon the
signal rate and format, i.e., this is basically an electrical
regenerator combined with a laser/receiver. Hence, this type of
wavelength converter has signal processing restrictions that are
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
essentially the same as those described for regenerators in Table 3
of section 3.5.1.
Another approach performs the wavelength conversion optically via
non-linear optical effects, similar in spirit to the familiar
frequency mixing used in radio frequency systems, but significantly
harder to implement. Such processes/effects may place limits on the
range of achievable conversion. These may depend on the wavelength of
the input signal and the properties of the converter as opposed to
only the properties of the converter in the OEO case. Different WSON
system designs may choose to utilize this component to varying
degrees or not at all.
Current or envisioned contexts for wavelength converters are:
1. Wavelength conversion associated with OEO switches and fixed or
tunable optics. In this case there are typically multiple
converters available since each use of an OEO switch can be thought
of as a potential wavelength converter.
2. Wavelength conversion associated with ROADMs/OXCs. In this case
there may be a limited pool of wavelength converters available.
Conversion could be either all optical or via an OEO method.
3. Wavelength conversion associated with fixed devices such as FOADMs.
In this case there may be a limited amount of conversion. Also in
this case the conversion may be used as part of optical path
routing.
Based on the above considerations, wavelength converters are modeled
as follows:
1. Wavelength converters can always be modeled as associated with
network elements. This includes fixed wavelength routing elements.
2. A network element may have full wavelength conversion capability,
i.e., any input port and wavelength, or a limited number of
wavelengths and ports. On a box with a limited number of
converters there also may exist restrictions on which ports can
reach the converters. Hence regardless of where the converters
actually are they can be associated with input ports.
3. Wavelength converters have range restrictions that are either
independent or dependent upon the input wavelength.
In WSONs where wavelength converters are sparse an optical path may
appear to loop or "backtrack" upon itself in order to reach a
wavelength converter prior to continuing on to its destination. The
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
lambda used on input to the wavelength converter would be different
from the lambda coming back from the wavelength converter.
A model for an individual O-E-O wavelength converter would consist
of:
o Input lambda or frequency range.
o Output lambda or frequency range.
3.6.1. Wavelength Converter Pool Modeling
A WSON node may include multiple wavelength converters. These are
usually arranged into some type of pool to promote resource sharing.
There are a number of different approaches used in the design of
switches with converter pools. However, from the point of view of
path computation it is necessary to know the following:
1. The nodes that support wavelength conversion.
2. The accessibility and availability of a wavelength converter to
convert from a given input wavelength on a particular input port
to a desired output wavelength on a particular output port.
3. Limitations on the types of signals that can be converted and the
conversions that can be performed.
To model point 2 above, a technique similar to that used to model
ROADMs and optical switches can be used, i.e., matrices to indicate
possible connectivity along with wavelength constraints for
links/ports. Since wavelength converters are considered a scarce
resource it will be desirable to include as a minimum the usage state
of individual wavelength converters in the pool.
A three stage model is used as shown schematically in Figure 3.
(Schematic diagram of wavelength converter pool model). This model
represents N input ports (fibers), P wavelength converters, and M
output ports (fibers). Since not all input ports can necessarily
reach the converter pool, the model starts with a wavelength pool
input matrix WI(i,p) = {0,1} where input port i can potentially reach
wavelength converter p.
Since not all wavelengths can necessarily reach all the converters or
the converters may have limited input wavelength range there is a set
of input port constraints for each wavelength converter. Currently it
is assumed that a wavelength converter can only take a single
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
wavelength on input. Each wavelength converter input port constraint
can be modeled via a wavelength set mechanism.
Next a state vector WC(j) = {0,1} dependent upon whether wavelength
converter j in the pool is in use. This is the only state kept in the
converter pool model. This state is not necessary for modeling
"fixed" transponder system, i.e., systems where there is no sharing.
In addition, this state information may be encoded in a much more
compact form depending on the overall connectivity structure [Gen-
Encode].
After that, a set of wavelength converter output wavelength
constraints is used. These constraints indicate what wavelengths a
particular wavelength converter can generate or are restricted to
generating due to internal switch structure.
Finally, a wavelength pool output matrix WE(p,k) = {0,1} indicating
whether the output from wavelength converter p can reach output port
k. Examples of this method being used to model wavelength converter
pools for several switch architectures are given in reference [Gen-
Encode].
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ E1
----->| | +--------+ | |----->
I2 | +------+ WC #1 +-------+ | E2
----->| | +--------+ | |----->
| Wavelength | | Wavelength |
| Converter | +--------+ | Converter |
| Pool +------+ WC #2 +-------+ Pool |
| | +--------+ | |
| Input | | Output |
| Connection | . | Connection |
| Matrix | . | Matrix |
| | . | |
| | | |
IN | | +--------+ | | EM
----->| +------+ WC #P +-------+ |----->
| | +--------+ | |
+-------------+ ^ ^ +-------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
Input wavelength Output wavelength
constraints for constraints for
each converter each converter
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of wavelength converter pool model.
Figure 4 below shows a simple optical switch in a four wavelength
DWDM system sharing wavelength converters in a general shared "per
node" fashion.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+-----------+ ___________ +------+
| |--------------------------->| |
| |--------------------------->| C |
/| | |--------------------------->| o | E1
I1 /D+--->| |--------------------------->| m |
+ e+--->| | | b |====>
====>| M| | Optical | +-----------+ +----+ | i |
+ u+--->| Switch | | WC Pool | |O S|-->| n |
\x+--->| | | +-----+ | |p w|-->| e |
\| | +----+->|WC #1|--+->|t i| | r |
| | | +-----+ | |i t| +------+
| | | | |c c| +------+
/| | | | +-----+ | |a h|-->| |
I2 /D+--->| +----+->|WC #2|--+->|l |-->| C | E2
+ e+--->| | | +-----+ | | | | o |
====>| M| | | +-----------+ +----+ | m |====>
+ u+--->| | | b |
\x+--->| |--------------------------->| i |
\| | |--------------------------->| n |
| |--------------------------->| e |
|___________|--------------------------->| r |
+-----------+ +------+
Figure 4. An optical switch featuring a shared per node wavelength
converter pool architecture.
In this case the input and output pool matrices are simply:
+-----+ +-----+
| 1 1 | | 1 1 |
WI =| |, WE =| |
| 1 1 | | 1 1 |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 5 shows a different wavelength pool architecture known as
"shared per fiber". In this case the input and output pool matrices
are simply:
+-----+ +-----+
| 1 1 | | 1 0 |
WI =| |, WE =| |
| 1 1 | | 0 1 |
+-----+ +-----+
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+-----------+ +------+
| |--------------------------->| |
| |--------------------------->| C |
/| | |--------------------------->| o | E1
I1 /D+--->| |--------------------------->| m |
+ e+--->| | | b |====>
====>| M| | Optical | +-----------+ | i |
+ u+--->| Switch | | WC Pool | | n |
\x+--->| | | +-----+ | | e |
\| | +----+->|WC #1|--+---------->| r |
| | | +-----+ | +------+
| | | | +------+
/| | | | +-----+ | | |
I2 /D+--->| +----+->|WC #2|--+---------->| C | E2
+ e+--->| | | +-----+ | | o |
====>| M| | | +-----------+ | m |====>
+ u+--->| | | b |
\x+--->| |--------------------------->| i |
\| | |--------------------------->| n |
| |--------------------------->| e |
|___________|--------------------------->| r |
+-----------+ +------+
Figure 5. An optical switch featuring a shared per fiber wavelength
converter pool architecture.
3.7. Characterizing Electro-Optical Network Elements
In this section electro-optical WSON network elements are
characterized by the three key functional components: input
constraints, output constraints and processing capabilities.
WSON Network Element
+-----------------------+
WSON Signal | | | | WSON Signal
| | | |
---------------> | | | | ----------------->
| | | |
+-----------------------+
<-----> <-------> <----->
Input Processing Output
Figure 6. WSON Network Element
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
3.7.1. Input Constraints
Section 3. (Wavelength Switched Optical Networks) discussed the basic
properties regenerators, OEO switches and wavelength converters. From
these the following possible types of input constraints and
properties are derived:
1. Acceptable Modulation formats.
2. Client Signal (G-PID) restrictions.
3. Bit Rate restrictions.
4. FEC coding restrictions.
5. Configurability: (a) none, (b) self-configuring, (c) required.
These constraints are represented via simple lists. Note that the
device may need to be "provisioned" via signaling or some other means
to accept signals with some attributes versus others. In other cases
the devices maybe relatively transparent to some attributes, e.g.,
such as a 2R regenerator to bit rate. Finally, some devices may be
able to auto-detect some attributes and configure themselves, e.g., a
3R regenerator with bit rate detection mechanisms and flexible phase
locking circuitry. To account for these different cases item 5 has
been added, which describes the devices configurability.
Note that such input constraints also apply to the termination of the
WSON signal.
3.7.2. Output Constraints
None of the network elements considered here modifies either the bit
rate or the basic type of the client signal. However, they may modify
the modulation format or the FEC code. Typically the following types
of output constraints are seen:
1. Output modulation is the same as input modulation (default).
2. A limited set of output modulations is available.
3. Output FEC is the same as input FEC code (default).
4. A limited set of output FEC codes is available.
Note that in cases (2) and (4) above, where there is more than one
choice in the output modulation or FEC code then the network element
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
will need to be configured on a per LSP basis as to which choice to
use.
3.7.3. Processing Capabilities
A general WSON network element (NE) can perform a number of signal
processing functions including:
(A) Regeneration (possibly different types).
(B) Fault and Performance Monitoring.
(C) Wavelength Conversion.
(D) Switching.
An NE may or may not have the ability to perform regeneration (of the
one of the types previously discussed). In addition some nodes may
have limited regeneration capability, i.e., a shared pool, which may
be applied to selected signals traversing the NE. Hence to describe
the regeneration capability of a link or node it is necessary to have
at a minimum:
1. Regeneration capability: (a)fixed, (b) selective, (c) none.
2. Regeneration type: 1R, 2R, 3R.
3. Regeneration pool properties for the case of selective
regeneration (input and output restrictions, availability).
Note that the properties of shared regenerator pools would be
essentially the same as that of wavelength converter pools modeled in
section 3.6.1. (Wavelength Pool Convertor Modeling).
Item (B), fault and performance monitoring, is typically outside the
scope of the control plane. However, when the operations are to be
performed on an LSP basis or on part of an LSP then the control plane
can be of assistance in their configuration. Per LSP, per node, fault
and performance monitoring examples include setting up a "section
trace" (a regenerator overhead identifier) between two nodes, or
intermediate optical performance monitoring at selected nodes along a
path.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
4. Routing and Wavelength Assignment and the Control Plane
From a control plane perspective, a wavelength-convertible network
with full wavelength-conversion capability at each node can be
controlled much like a packet MPLS-labeled network or a circuit-
switched Time-division multiplexing (TDM) network with full time slot
interchange capability is controlled. In this case, the path
selection process needs to identify the Traffic Engineered (TE) links
to be used by an optical path, and wavelength assignment can be made
on a hop-by-hop basis.
However, in the case of an optical network without wavelength
converters, an optical path needs to be routed from source to
destination and must use a single wavelength that is available along
that path without "colliding" with a wavelength used by any other
optical path that may share an optical fiber. This is sometimes
referred to as a "wavelength continuity constraint".
In the general case of limited or no wavelength converters the
computation of both the links and wavelengths is known as RWA.
The inputs to basic RWA are the requested optical path's source and
destination, the network topology, the locations and capabilities of
any wavelength converters, and the wavelengths available on each
optical link. The output from an algorithm providing RWA is an
explicit route through ROADMs, a wavelength for optical transmitter,
and a set of locations (generally associated with ROADMs or switches)
where wavelength conversion is to occur and the new wavelength to be
used on each component link after that point in the route.
It is to be noted that the choice of specific RWA algorithm is out of
the scope for this document. However there are a number of different
approaches to dealing with RWA algorithm that can affect the division
of effort between path computation/routing and signaling.
4.1. Architectural Approaches to RWA
Two general computational approaches are taken to performing RWA.
Some algorithms utilize a two-step procedure of path selection
followed by wavelength assignment, and others perform RWA in a
combined fashion.
In the following, three different ways of performing RWA in
conjunction with the control plane are considered. The choice of one
of these architectural approaches over another generally impacts the
demands placed on the various control plane protocols. The approaches
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
are provided for reference purposes only, and other approaches are
possible.
4.1.1. Combined RWA (R&WA)
In this case, a unique entity is in charge of performing routing and
wavelength assignment. This approach relies on a sufficient knowledge
of network topology, of available network resources and of network
nodes' capabilities. This solution is compatible with most known RWA
algorithms, and in particular those concerned with network
optimization. On the other hand, this solution requires up-to-date
and detailed network information.
Such a computational entity could reside in two different places:
o In a PCE which maintains a complete and updated view of network
state and provides path computation services to nodes (PCCs).
o In an ingress node, in which case all nodes have the R&WA
functionality and network state is obtained by a periodic flooding
of information provided by the other nodes.
4.1.2. Separated R and WA (R+WA)
In this case, one entity performs routing, while a second performs
wavelength assignment. The first entity furnishes one or more paths
to the second entity which will perform wavelength assignment and
final path selection.
As the entities computing the path and the wavelength assignment are
separated, this constrains the class of RWA algorithms that may be
implemented. Although it may seem that algorithms optimizing a joint
usage of the physical and wavelength paths are excluded from this
solution, many practical optimization algorithms only consider a
limited set of possible paths, e.g., as computed via a k-shortest
path algorithm. Hence, while there is no guarantee that the selected
final route and wavelength offers the optimal solution, by allowing
multiple routes to pass to the wavelength selection process
reasonable optimization can be performed.
The entity performing the routing assignment needs the topology
information of the network, whereas the entity performing the
wavelength assignment needs information on the network's available
resources and specific network node capabilities.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
4.1.3. Routing and Distributed WA (R+DWA)
In this case, one entity performs routing, while wavelength
assignment is performed on a hop-by-hop, distributed manner along the
previously computed path. This mechanism relies on updating of a list
of potential wavelengths used to ensure conformance with the
wavelength continuity constraint.
As currently specified, the GMPLS protocol suite signaling protocol
can accommodate such an approach. GMPLS, per [RFC3471], includes
support for the communication of the set of labels (wavelengths) that
may be used between nodes via a Label Set. When conversion is not
performed at an intermediate node, a hop generates the Label Set it
sends to the next hop based on the intersection of the Label Set
received from the previous hop and the wavelengths available on the
node's switch and ongoing interface. The generation of the outgoing
Label Set is up to the node local policy (even if one expects a
consistent policy configuration throughout a given transparency
domain). When wavelength conversion is performed at an intermediate
node, a new Label Set is generated. The egress node selects one label
in the Label Set which it received; additionally the node can apply
local policy during label selection. GMPLS also provides support for
the signaling of bidirectional optical paths.
Depending on these policies a wavelength assignment may not be found
or one may be found that consumes too many conversion resources
relative to what a dedicated wavelength assignment policy would have
achieved. Hence, this approach may generate higher blocking
probabilities in a heavily loaded network.
This solution may be facilitated via signaling extensions which ease
its functioning and possibly enhance its performance with respect to
blocking probability. Note that this approach requires less
information dissemination than the other techniques described.
The first entity may be a PCE or the ingress node of the LSP.
4.2. Conveying information needed by RWA
The previous sections have characterized WSONs and optical path
requests. In particular, high level models of the information used by
RWA process were presented. This information can be viewed as either
relatively static, i.e., changing with hardware changes (including
possibly failures), or relatively dynamic, i.e., those that can
change with optical path provisioning. The time requirement in which
an entity involved in RWA process needs to be notified of such
changes is fairly situational. For example, for network restoration
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
purposes, learning of a hardware failure or of new hardware coming
online to provide restoration capability can be critical.
Currently there are various methods for communicating RWA relevant
information, these include, but are not limited to:
o Existing control plane protocols, i.e., GMPLS routing and
signaling. Note that routing protocols can be used to convey both
static and dynamic information.
o Management protocols such as NetConf, SNMPv3, CLI, and CORBA.
o Directory services and accompanying protocols. These are typically
used for the dissemination of relatively static information.
Directory services are not suited to manage information in dynamic
and fluid environments.
o Other techniques for dynamic information, e.g., sending
information directly from NEs to PCE to avoid flooding. This would
be useful if the number of PCEs is significantly less than number
of WSON NEs. There may be other ways to limit flooding to
"interested" NEs.
Possible mechanisms to improve scaling of dynamic information
include:
o Tailor message content to WSON. For example the use of wavelength
ranges, or wavelength occupation bit maps.
o Utilize incremental updates if feasible.
5. Modeling Examples and Control Plane Use Cases
This section provides examples of the fixed and switched optical node
and wavelength constraint models of Section 3. and use cases for WSON
control plane path computation, establishment, rerouting, and
optimization.
5.1. Network Modeling for GMPLS/PCE Control
Consider a network containing three routers (R1 through R3), eight
WSON nodes (N1 through N8) and 18 links (L1 through L18) and one OEO
converter (O1) in a topology shown below.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--------+
+-L3-+N2+-L5-+ +--------L12--+N6+--L15--+ N8 +
| +--+ |N4+-L8---+ +--+ ++--+---++
| | +-L9--+| | | |
+--+ +-+-+ ++-+ || | L17 L18
| ++-L1--+ | | ++++ +----L16---+ | |
|R1| | N1| L7 |R2| | | |
| ++-L2--+ | | ++-+ | ++---++
+--+ +-+-+ | | | + R3 |
| +--+ ++-+ | | +-----+
+-L4-+N3+-L6-+N5+-L10-+ ++----+
+--+ | +--------L11--+ N7 +
+--+ ++---++
| |
L13 L14
| |
++-+ |
|O1+-+
+--+
Figure 7. Routers and WSON nodes in a GMPLS and PCE Environment.
5.1.1. Describing the WSON nodes
The eight WSON nodes described in Figure 7 have the following
properties:
o Nodes N1, N2, N3 have FOADMs installed and can therefore only
access a static and pre-defined set of wavelengths.
o All other nodes contain ROADMs and can therefore access all
wavelengths.
o Nodes N4, N5, N7 and N8 are multi-degree nodes, allowing any
wavelength to be optically switched between any of the links. Note
however, that this does not automatically apply to wavelengths
that are being added or dropped at the particular node.
o Node N4 is an exception to that: This node can switch any
wavelength from its add/drop ports to any of its output links (L5,
L7 and L12 in this case).
o The links from the routers are only able to carry one wavelength
with the exception of links L8 and L9 which are capable to
add/drop any wavelength.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
o Node N7 contains an OEO transponder (O1) connected to the node via
links L13 and L14. That transponder operates in 3R mode and does
not change the wavelength of the signal. Assume that it can
regenerate any of the client signals, however only for a specific
wavelength.
Given the above restrictions, the node information for the eight
nodes can be expressed as follows: (where ID == identifier, SCM ==
switched connectivity matrix, and FCM == fixed connectivity matrix).
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+ID+SCM +FCM +
| | |L1 |L2 |L3 |L4 | | |L1 |L2 |L3 |L4 | |
| |L1 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |L1 |0 |0 |1 |0 | |
|N1|L2 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |L2 |0 |0 |0 |1 | |
| |L3 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |L3 |1 |0 |0 |1 | |
| |L4 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |L4 |0 |1 |1 |0 | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L3 |L5 | | | | |L3 |L5 | | | |
|N2|L3 |0 |0 | | | |L3 |0 |1 | | | |
| |L5 |0 |0 | | | |L5 |1 |0 | | | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L4 |L6 | | | | |L4 |L6 | | | |
|N3|L4 |0 |0 | | | |L4 |0 |1 | | | |
| |L6 |0 |0 | | | |L6 |1 |0 | | | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L5 |L7 |L8 |L9 |L12| |L5 |L7 |L8 |L9 |L12|
| |L5 |0 |1 |1 |1 |1 |L5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|N4|L7 |1 |0 |1 |1 |1 |L7 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
| |L8 |1 |1 |0 |1 |1 |L8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
| |L9 |1 |1 |1 |0 |1 |L9 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
| |L12|1 |1 |1 |1 |0 |L12|0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L6 |L7 |L10|L11| | |L6 |L7 |L10|L11| |
| |L6 |0 |1 |0 |1 | |L6 |0 |0 |1 |0 | |
|N5|L7 |1 |0 |0 |1 | |L7 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |
| |L10|0 |0 |0 |0 | |L10|1 |0 |0 |0 | |
| |L11|1 |1 |0 |0 | |L11|0 |0 |0 |0 | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L12|L15| | | | |L12|L15| | | |
|N6|L12|0 |1 | | | |L12|0 |0 | | | |
| |L15|1 |0 | | | |L15|0 |0 | | | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L11|L13|L14|L16| | |L11|L13|L14|L16| |
| |L11|0 |1 |0 |1 | |L11|0 |0 |0 |0 | |
|N7|L13|1 |0 |0 |0 | |L13|0 |0 |1 |0 | |
| |L14|0 |0 |0 |1 | |L14|0 |1 |0 |0 | |
| |L16|1 |0 |1 |0 | |L16|0 |0 |1 |0 | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |L15|L16|L17|L18| | |L15|L16|L17|L18| |
| |L15|0 |1 |0 |0 | |L15|0 |0 |0 |1 | |
|N8|L16|1 |0 |0 |0 | |L16|0 |0 |1 |0 | |
| |L17|0 |0 |0 |0 | |L17|0 |1 |0 |0 | |
| |L18|0 |0 |0 |0 | |L18|1 |0 |1 |0 | |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5.1.2. Describing the links
For the following discussion some simplifying assumptions are made:
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
o It is assumed that the WSON node support a total of four
wavelengths designated WL1 through WL4.
o It is assumed that the impairment feasibility of a path or path
segment is independent from the wavelength chosen.
For the discussion of RWA operation to build LSPs between two
routers, the wavelength constraints on the links between the routers
and the WSON nodes as well as the connectivity matrix of these links
needs to be specified:
+Link+WLs supported +Possible output links+
| L1 | WL1 | L3 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L2 | WL2 | L4 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L8 | WL1 WL2 WL3 WL4 | L5 L7 L12 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L9 | WL1 WL2 WL3 WL4 | L5 L7 L12 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L10| WL2 | L6 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L13| WL1 WL2 WL3 WL4 | L11 L14 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L14| WL1 WL2 WL3 WL4 | L13 L16 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L17| WL2 | L16 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
| L18| WL1 | L15 |
+----+-----------------+---------------------+
Note that the possible output links for the links connecting to the
routers is inferred from the switched connectivity matrix and the
fixed connectivity matrix of the Nodes N1 through N8 and is show here
for convenience, i.e., this information does not need to be repeated.
5.2. RWA Path Computation and Establishment
The calculation of optical impairment feasible routes is outside the
scope of this document. In general optical impairment feasible routes
serve as an input to RWA algorithm.
For the example use case shown here, assume the following feasible
routes:
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
+Endpoint 1+Endpoint 2+Feasible Route +
| R1 | R2 | L1 L3 L5 L8 |
| R1 | R2 | L1 L3 L5 L9 |
| R1 | R2 | L2 L4 L6 L7 L8 |
| R1 | R2 | L2 L4 L6 L7 L9 |
| R1 | R2 | L2 L4 L6 L10 |
| R1 | R3 | L1 L3 L5 L12 L15 L18 |
| R1 | N7 | L2 L4 L6 L11 |
| N7 | R3 | L16 L17 |
| N7 | R2 | L16 L15 L12 L9 |
| R2 | R3 | L8 L12 L15 L18 |
| R2 | R3 | L8 L7 L11 L16 L17 |
| R2 | R3 | L9 L12 L15 L18 |
| R2 | R3 | L9 L7 L11 L16 L17 |
Given a request to establish a LSP between R1 and R2 RWA algorithm
finds the following possible solutions:
+WL + Path +
| WL1| L1 L3 L5 L8 |
| WL1| L1 L3 L5 L9 |
| WL2| L2 L4 L6 L7 L8|
| WL2| L2 L4 L6 L7 L9|
| WL2| L2 L4 L6 L10 |
Assume now that RWA algorithm yields WL1 and the Path L1 L3 L5 L8 for
the requested LSP.
Next, another LSP is signaled from R1 to R2. Given the established
LSP using WL1, the following table shows the available paths:
+WL + Path +
| WL2| L2 L4 L6 L7 L9|
| WL2| L2 L4 L6 L10 |
Assume now that RWA algorithm yields WL2 and the path L2 L4 L6 L7 L9
for the establishment of the new LSP.
A LSP request -this time from R2 to R3 - can not be fulfilled since
the only four possible paths (starting at L8 and L9) are already in
use.
5.3. Resource Optimization
The preceding example gives rise to another use case: the
optimization of network resources. Optimization can be achieved on a
number of layers (e.g. through electrical or optical multiplexing of
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
client signals) or by re-optimizing the solutions found by a RWA
algorithm.
Given the above example again, assume that a RWA algorithm should
identify a path between R2 and R3. The only possible path to reach R3
from R2 needs to use L9. L9 however is blocked by one of the LSPs
from R1.
5.4. Support for Rerouting
It is also envisioned that the extensions to GMPLS and PCE support
rerouting of wavelengths in case of failures.
Assume for this discussion that the only two LSPs in use in the
system are:
LSP1: WL1 L1 L3 L5 L8
LSP2: WL2 L2 L4 L6 L7 L9
Assume furthermore that the link L5 fails. An RWA algorithm can now
compute the following alternate path and establish that path:
R1 -> N7 -> R2
Level 3 regeneration will take place at N7, so that the complete path
looks like this:
R1 -> L2 L4 L6 L11 L13 -> O1 -> L14 L16 L15 L12 L9 -> R2
5.5. Electro-Optical Networking Scenarios
In the following various networking scenarios are considered
involving regenerators, OEO switches and wavelength converters. These
scenarios can be grouped roughly by type and number of extensions to
the GMPLS control plane that would be required.
5.5.1. Fixed Regeneration Points
In the simplest networking scenario involving regenerators,
regeneration is associated with a WDM link or an entire node and is
not optional, i.e., all signals traversing the link or node will be
regenerated. This includes OEO switches since they provide
regeneration on every port.
There may be input constraints and output constraints on the
regenerators. Hence the path selection process will need to know from
routing or other means the regenerator constraints so that it can
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
choose a compatible path. For impairment aware routing and wavelength
assignment (IA-RWA) the path selection process will also need to know
which links/nodes provide regeneration. Even for "regular" RWA, this
regeneration information is useful since wavelength converters
typically perform regeneration and the wavelength continuity
constraint can be relaxed at such a point.
Signaling does not need to be enhanced to include this scenario since
there are no reconfigurable regenerator options on input, output or
with respect to processing.
5.5.2. Shared Regeneration Pools
In this scenario there are nodes with shared regenerator pools within
the network in addition to fixed regenerators of the previous
scenario. These regenerators are shared within a node and their
application to a signal is optional. There are no reconfigurable
options on either input or output. The only processing option is to
"regenerate" a particular signal or not.
Regenerator information in this case is used in path computation to
select a path that ensures signal compatibility and IA-RWA criteria.
To setup an LSP that utilizes a regenerator from a node with a shared
regenerator pool it is necessary to indicate that regeneration is to
take place at that particular node along the signal path. Such a
capability currently does not exist in GMPLS signaling.
5.5.3. Reconfigurable Regenerators
This scenario is concerned with regenerators that require
configuration prior to use on an optical signal. As discussed
previously, this could be due to a regenerator that must be
configured to accept signals with different characteristics, for
regenerators with a selection of output attributes, or for
regenerators with additional optional processing capabilities.
As in the previous scenarios it is necessary to have information
concerning regenerator properties for selection of compatible paths
and for IA-RWA computations. In addition during LSP setup it is
necessary to be able configure regenerator options at a particular
node along the path. Such a capability currently does not exist in
GMPLS signaling.
5.5.4. Relation to Translucent Networks
Networks that contain both transparent network elements such as
reconfigurable optical add drop multiplexers (ROADMs) and electro-
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
optical network elements such regenerators or OEO switches are
frequently referred to as translucent optical networks.
Three main types of translucent optical networks have been discussed:
1. Transparent "islands" surrounded by regenerators. This is
frequently seen when transitioning from a metro optical sub-
network to a long haul optical sub-network.
2. Mostly transparent networks with a limited number of OEO
("opaque") nodes strategically placed. This takes advantage of the
inherent regeneration capabilities of OEO switches. In the
planning of such networks one has to determine the optimal
placement of the OEO switches.
3. Mostly transparent networks with a limited number of optical
switching nodes with "shared regenerator pools" that can be
optionally applied to signals passing through these switches.
These switches are sometimes called translucent nodes.
All three types of translucent networks fit within the networking
scenarios of Section 5.5.1. and Section 5.5.2. above. And hence,
can be accommodated by the GMPLS extensions envisioned in this
document.
6. GMPLS and PCE Implications
The presence and amount of wavelength conversion available at a
wavelength switching interface has an impact on the information that
needs to be transferred by the control plane (GMPLS) and the PCE
architecture. Current GMPLS and PCE standards can address the full
wavelength conversion case so the following will only address the
limited and no wavelength conversion cases.
6.1. Implications for GMPLS signaling
Basic support for WSON signaling already exists in GMPLS with the
lambda (value 9) LSP encoding type [RFC3471], or for G.709 compatible
optical channels, the LSP encoding type (value = 13) "G.709 Optical
Channel" from [RFC4328]. However a number of practical issues arise
in the identification of wavelengths and signals, and distributed
wavelength assignment processes which are discussed below.
6.1.1. Identifying Wavelengths and Signals
As previously stated a global fixed mapping between wavelengths and
labels simplifies the characterization of WDM links and WSON devices.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Furthermore such a mapping as described in [Otani] provides such a
fixed mapping for communication between PCE and WSON PCCs.
6.1.2. WSON Signals and Network Element Processing
As discussed in Section 3.3.2. a WSON signal at any point along its
path can be characterized by the (a) modulation format, (b) FEC, (c)
wavelength, (d)bit rate, and (d)G-PID.
Currently G-PID, wavelength (via labels), and bit rate (via bandwidth
encoding) are supported in [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]. These RFCs can
accommodate the wavelength changing at any node along the LSP and can
thus provide explicit control of wavelength converters.
In the fixed regeneration point scenario described in Section 5.5.1.
(Fixed Regeneration Points) no enhancements are required to signaling
since there are no additional configuration options for the LSP at a
node.
In the case of shared regeneration pools described in Section 5.5.2.
(Shared Regeneration Pools) it is necessary to indicate to a node
that it should perform regeneration on a particular signal. Viewed
another way, for an LSP, it is desirable to specify that certain
nodes along the path perform regeneration. Such a capability
currently does not exist in GMPLS signaling.
The case of configurable regenerators described in Section 5.5.3.
(Reconfigurable Regenerators) is very similar to the previous except
that now there are potentially many more items that can be configured
on a per node basis for an LSP.
Note that the techniques of [RFC5420] which allow for additional LSP
attributes and their recording in a Record Route Object (RRO) object
could be extended to allow for additional LSP attributes in an ERO.
This could allow one to indicate where optional 3R regeneration
should take place along a path, any modification of LSP attributes
such as modulation format, or any enhance processing such as
performance monitoring.
6.1.3. Combined RWA/Separate Routing WA support
In either the combined RWA or separate routing WA cases, the node
initiating the signaling will have a route from the source to
destination along with the wavelengths (generalized labels) to be
used along portions of the path. Current GMPLS signaling supports an
Explicit Route Object (ERO) and within an ERO an ERO Label subobject
can be used to indicate the wavelength to be used at a particular
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
node. In case the local label map approach is used the label sub-
object entry in the ERO has to be interpreted appropriately.
6.1.4. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Unidirectional, No
Converters
GMPLS signaling for a unidirectional optical path LSP allows for the
use of a label set object in the Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) path message. The processing of the
label set object to take the intersection of available lambdas along
a path can be performed resulting in the set of available lambda
being known to the destination that can then use a wavelength
selection algorithm to choose a lambda.
6.1.5. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Unidirectional, Limited
Converters
In the case of wavelength converters, nodes with wavelength
converters would need to make the decision as to whether to perform
conversion. One indicator for this would be that the set of available
wavelengths which is obtained via the intersection of the incoming
label set and the output links available wavelengths is either null
or deemed too small to permit successful completion.
At this point the node would need to remember that it will apply
wavelength conversion and will be responsible for assigning the
wavelength on the previous lambda-contiguous segment when the RSVP-TE
RESV message is processed. The node will pass on an enlarged label
set reflecting only the limitations of the wavelength converter and
the output link. The record route option in RSVP-TE signaling can be
used to show where wavelength conversion has taken place.
6.1.6. Distributed Wavelength Assignment: Bidirectional, No
Converters
There are cases of a bidirectional optical path which requires the
use of the same lambda in both directions. The above procedure can be
used to determine the available bidirectional lambda set if it is
interpreted that the available label set is available in both
directions. In bidirectional LSPs setup, according to [RFC3471]
Section 4.1. (Architectural Approaches to RWA), is indicated by the
presence of an upstream label in the path message.
However, until the intersection of the available label sets is
determined along the path and at the destination node the upstream
label information may not be correct. This case can be supported
using current GMPLS mechanisms, but may not be as efficient as an
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
optimized bidirectional single-label allocation mechanism.
6.2. Implications for GMPLS Routing
GMPLS routing [RFC4202] currently defines an interface capability
descriptor for "lambda switch capable" (LSC) which can be used to
describe the interfaces on a ROADM or other type of wavelength
selective switch. In addition to the topology information typically
conveyed via an IGP, it would be necessary to convey the following
subsystem properties to minimally characterize a WSON:
1. WDM Link properties (allowed wavelengths).
2. Optical transmitters (wavelength range).
3. ROADM/FOADM Properties (connectivity matrix, port wavelength
restrictions).
4. Wavelength converter properties (per network element, may change if
a common limited shared pool is used).
This information is modeled in detail in [WSON-Info] and a compact
encoding is given in [WSON-Encode].
6.2.1. Electro-Optical Element Signal Compatibility
In network scenarios where signal compatibility is a concern it is
necessary to add parameters to our existing node and link models to
take into account electro-optical input constraints, output
constraints, and the signal processing capabilities of a NE in path
computations.
Input constraints:
1. Permitted optical tributary signal classes: A list of optical
tributary signal classes that can be processed by this network
element or carried over this link. (configuration type)
2. Acceptable FEC codes. (configuration type)
3. Acceptable Bit Rate Set: a list of specific bit rates or bit rate
ranges that the device can accommodate. Coarse bit rate info is
included with the optical tributary signal class restrictions.
4. Acceptable G-PID list: a list of G-PIDs corresponding to the
"client" digital streams that is compatible with this device.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Note that the bit rate of the signal does not change over the LSP.
This can be communicated as an LSP parameter and hence this
information would be available for any NE that needs to use it for
configuration. Hence it is not necessary to have "configuration type"
for the NE with respect to bit rate.
Output constraints:
1. Output modulation: (a)same as input, (b) list of available types
2. FEC options: (a) same as input, (b) list of available codes
Processing capabilities:
1. Regeneration: (a) 1R, (b) 2R, (c) 3R, (d)list of selectable
regeneration types
2. Fault and performance monitoring: (a) G-PID particular
capabilities, (b) optical performance monitoring capabilities.
Note that such parameters could be specified on an (a) Network
element wide basis, (b) a per port basis, (c) on a per regenerator
basis. Typically such information has been on a per port basis; see
the GMPLS interface switching capability descriptor [RFC4202].
6.2.2. Wavelength-Specific Availability Information
For wavelength assignment it is necessary to know which specific
wavelengths are available and which are occupied if a combined RWA
process or separate WA process is run as discussed in sections 4.1.1.
4.1.2. This is currently not possible with GMPLS routing.
In the routing extensions for GMPLS [RFC4202], requirements for
layer-specific TE attributes are discussed. RWA for optical networks
without wavelength converters imposes an additional requirement for
the lambda (or optical channel) layer: that of knowing which specific
wavelengths are in use. Note that current DWDM systems range from 16
channels to 128 channels with advanced laboratory systems with as
many as 300 channels. Given these channel limitations and if the
approach of a global wavelength to label mapping or furnishing the
local mappings to the PCEs is taken then representing the use of
wavelengths via a simple bit-map is feasible [Gen-Encode].
6.2.3. WSON Routing Information Summary
The following table summarizes the WSON information that could be
conveyed via GMPLS routing and attempts to classify that information
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
as to its static or dynamic nature and whether that information would
tend to be associated with either a link or a node.
Information Static/Dynamic Node/Link
------------------------------------------------------------------
Connectivity matrix Static Node
Per port wavelength restrictions Static Node(1)
WDM link (fiber) lambda ranges Static Link
WDM link channel spacing Static Link
Optical transmitter range Static Link(2)
Wavelength conversion capabilities Static(3) Node
Maximum bandwidth per wavelength Static Link
Wavelength availability Dynamic(4) Link
Signal compatibility and processing Static/Dynamic Node
Notes:
1. These are the per port wavelength restrictions of an optical
device such as a ROADM and are independent of any optical
constraints imposed by a fiber link.
2. This could also be viewed as a node capability.
3. This could be dynamic in the case of a limited pool of converters
where the number available can change with connection
establishment. Note it may be desirable to include regeneration
capabilities here since OEO converters are also regenerators.
4. Not necessarily needed in the case of distributed wavelength
assignment via signaling.
While the full complement of the information from the previous table
is needed in the Combined RWA and the separate Routing and WA
architectures, in the case of Routing + distributed WA via signaling
only the following information is needed:
Information Static/Dynamic Node/Link
------------------------------------------------------------------
Connectivity matrix Static Node
Wavelength conversion capabilities Static(3) Node
Information models and compact encodings for this information is
provided in [WSON-Info], [Gen-Encode] and [WSON-Encode].
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
6.3. Optical Path Computation and Implications for PCE
As previously noted RWA can be computationally intensive. Such
computationally intensive path computations and optimizations were
part of the impetus for the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
The Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) defines the procedures
necessary to support both sequential [RFC5440] and global concurrent
path computations (PCE-GCO) [RFC5557]. The PCEP is well positioned to
support WSON-enabled RWA computation with some protocol enhancement.
Implications for PCE generally fall into two main categories: (a)
optical path constraints and characteristics, (b) computation
architectures.
6.3.1. Optical path Constraints and Characteristics
For the varying degrees of optimization that may be encountered in a
network the following models of bulk and sequential optical path
requests are encountered:
o Batch optimization, multiple optical paths requested at one time
(PCE-GCO).
o Optical path(s) and backup optical path(s) requested at one time
(PCEP).
o Single optical path requested at a time (PCEP).
PCEP and PCE-GCO can be readily enhanced to support all of the
potential models of RWA computation.
Optical path constraints include:
o Bidirectional Assignment of wavelengths.
o Possible simultaneous assignment of wavelength to primary and
backup paths.
o Tuning range constraint on optical transmitter.
6.3.2. Electro-Optical Element Signal Compatibility
When requesting a path computation to PCE, the PCC should be able to
indicate the following:
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
o The G-PID type of an LSP.
o The signal attributes at the transmitter (at the source): (i)
modulation type; (ii) FEC type.
o The signal attributes at the receiver (at the sink): (i)
modulation type; (ii) FEC type.
The PCE should be able to respond to the PCC with the following:
o The conformity of the requested optical characteristics associated
with the resulting LSP with the source, sink and NE along the LSP.
o Additional LSP attributes modified along the path (e.g.,
modulation format change, etc.).
6.3.3. Discovery of RWA Capable PCEs
The algorithms and network information needed for RWA are somewhat
specialized and computationally intensive hence not all PCEs within a
domain would necessarily need or want this capability. Hence, it
would be useful via the mechanisms being established for PCE
discovery [RFC5088] to indicate that a PCE has the ability to deal
with RWA. Reference [RFC5088] indicates that a sub-TLV could be
allocated for this purpose.
Recent progress on objective functions in PCE [RFC5541] would allow
the operators to flexibly request differing objective functions per
their need and applications. For instance, this would allow the
operator to choose an objective function that minimizes the total
network cost associated with setting up a set of paths concurrently.
This would also allow operators to choose an objective function that
results in a most evenly distributed link utilization.
This implies that PCEP would easily accommodate wavelength selection
algorithm in its objective function to be able to optimize the path
computation from the perspective of wavelength assignment if chosen
by the operators.
7. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within GMPLS and associated protocols. That is the OSPF-TE, RSVP-TE,
and PCEP security models could be operated unchanged.
However satisfying the requirements for RWA using the existing
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
protocols may significantly affect the loading of those protocols.
This may make the operation of the network more vulnerable to denial
of service attacks. Therefore additional care maybe required to
ensure that the protocols are secure in the WSON environment.
Furthermore the additional information distributed in order to
address RWA represents a disclosure of network capabilities that an
operator may wish to keep private. Consideration should be given to
securing this information. For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS
related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework
[RFC5920].
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request for IANA actions.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4202, October 2005.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture ", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5088] J.L. Le Roux, J.P. Vasseur, Yuichi Ikejiri, and Raymond
Zhang, "OSPF protocol extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", January 2008.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July
2008.
[RFC5557] Y. Lee, J.L. Le Roux, D. King, and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions In Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
[RFC5440] J.P. Vasseur and J.L. Le Roux (Editors), "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, May
2009.
[RFC5541] J.L. Le Roux, J.P. Vasseur, and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication and discovery protocols", RFC 5541, July
2009.
10.2. Informative References
[Gen-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, and W. Imajuku, "General
Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode, work
in progress.
[G.652] ITU-T Recommendation G.652, Characteristics of a single-mode
optical fibre and cable, June 2005.
[G.653] ITU-T Recommendation G.653, Characteristics of a dispersion-
shifted single-mode optical fibre and cable, December 2006.
[G.654] ITU-T Recommendation G.654, Characteristics of a cut-off
shifted single-mode optical fibre and cable, December 2006.
[G.655] ITU-T Recommendation G.655, Characteristics of a non-zero
dispersion-shifted single-mode optical fibre and cable,
March 2006.
[G.656] ITU-T Recommendation G.656, Characteristics of a fibre and
cable with non-zero dispersion for wideband optical
transport, December 2006.
[G.671] ITU-T Recommendation G.671, Transmission characteristics of
optical components and subsystems, January 2005.
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002.
[G.872] ITU-T Recommendation G.872, Architecture of optical
transport networks, November 2001.
[G.959.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.959.1, Optical Transport Network
Physical Layer Interfaces, March 2006.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM
applications: DWDM frequency grid, June 2002.
[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid, December 2003.
[G.Sup39] ITU-T Series G Supplement 39, Optical system design and
engineering considerations, February 2006.
[G.Sup43] ITU-T Series G Supplement 43, Transport of IEEE 10G base-R
in optical transport networks (OTN), November 2006.
[Imajuku] W. Imajuku, Y. Sone, I. Nishioka, S. Seno, "Routing
Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching
Constraint", work in progress: draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-
switching-constraint.
[Otani] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, "Generalized
Labels of Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Routers
(LSR)", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-
lambda-labels, work in progress.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.[Otani]T. Otani, H. Guo, K.
Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, "Generalized Labels of Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers (LSR)", work in
progress: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels, work
in progress.
[WSON-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, and W. Imajuku, "Routing
and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-
rwa-wson-encode, work in progress.
[WSON-Imp] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) with Impairments", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-
impairments, work in progress.
[WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-info, work in
progress
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
11. Contributors
Snigdho Bardalai
Fujitsu
Email: Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@(marconi.com, ericsson.com)
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Itaru Nishioka
NEC Corp.
1753 Simonumabe, Nakahara-ku
Kawasaki, Kanagawa 211-8666
Japan
Phone: +81 44 396 3287
Email: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com
Lyndon Ong
Ciena
Email: Lyong@Ciena.com
Pierre Peloso
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust, 91620 Nozay
France
Email: pierre.peloso@alcatel-lucent.fr
Jonathan Sadler
Tellabs
Email: Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com
Dirk Schroetter
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
Cisco
Email: dschroet@cisco.com
Jonas Martensson
Acreo
Electrum 236
16440 Kista, Sweden
Email:Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se
Author's Addresses
Greg M. Bernstein (ed.)
Grotto Networking
Fremont California, USA
Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Young Lee (ed.)
Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: ylee@huawei.com
Wataru Imajuku
NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan
Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks February 2011
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bernstein and Lee Expires August 8, 2011 [Page 53]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/