draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-10.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-11.txt 
CCAMP Working Group D. Ceccarelli, Ed. CCAMP Working Group D. Ceccarelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track F. Zhang Intended status: Standards Track F. Zhang
Expires: April 24, 2014 Huawei Technologies Expires: May 9, 2014 Huawei Technologies
S. Belotti S. Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
R. Rao R. Rao
Infinera Corporation Infinera Corporation
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Juniper
October 21, 2013 November 5, 2013
Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-11
Abstract Abstract
This document describes Open Shortest Path First - Traffic This document describes Open Shortest Path First - Traffic
Engineering (OSPF-TE) routing protocol extensions to support Engineering (OSPF-TE) routing protocol extensions to support
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) control of Optical Transport Networks (OTN) Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) control of Optical Transport Networks (OTN)
specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 as published in 2012. It specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 as published in 2012. It
extends mechanisms defined in RFC4203. extends mechanisms defined in RFC4203.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. OSPF-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TE-Link Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. TE-Link Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. ISCD format extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. ISCD format extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Switching Capability Specific Information . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Switching Capability Specific Information . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Switching Capability Specific Information for 4.1.1. Switching Capability Specific Information for
fixed containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 fixed containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Switching Capability Specific Information for 4.1.2. Switching Capability Specific Information for
variable containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 variable containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Switching Capability Specific Information - Field 4.1.3. Switching Capability Specific Information - Field
values and explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 values and explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Example of T,S and TS granularity utilization . . . . . . 14 5.2. Example of T,S and TS granularity utilization . . . . . . 14
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
Tributary Slots (i.e., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps), and supports various Tributary Slots (i.e., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps), and supports various
multiplexing relationships (e.g., ODUj multiplexed into ODUk (j<k)), multiplexing relationships (e.g., ODUj multiplexed into ODUk (j<k)),
two different tributary slots for ODUk (K=1, 2, 3) and ODUflex two different tributary slots for ODUk (K=1, 2, 3) and ODUflex
service type. In order to present this information in routing, this service type. In order to present this information in routing, this
document provides OTN technology specific encoding for use in GMPLS document provides OTN technology specific encoding for use in GMPLS
OSPF-TE as defined in [RFC4203]. OSPF-TE as defined in [RFC4203].
For a short overview of OTN evolution and implications of OTN For a short overview of OTN evolution and implications of OTN
requirements on GMPLS routing please refer to [OTN-FWK]. The requirements on GMPLS routing please refer to [OTN-FWK]. The
information model and an evaluation against the current solution are information model and an evaluation against the current solution are
provided in [OTN-INFO]. provided in [OTN-INFO]. The reader is supposed to be familiar with
both of these documents.
Routing information for Optical Channel Layer (OCh) (i.e., Routing information for Optical Channel Layer (OCh) (i.e.,
wavelength) is beyond the scope of this document. Please refer to wavelength) is beyond the scope of this document. Please refer to
[RFC6163] and [RFC6566] for further information. [RFC6163] and [RFC6566] for further information.
The reader is supposed to be familiar with OTN framework [OTN-FWK]
and GMPLS evaluation against OTN [OTN-INFO].
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. OSPF-TE Extensions 2. OSPF-TE Extensions
In terms of GMPLS based OTN networks, each OTUk can be viewed as a In terms of GMPLS based OTN networks, each OTUk can be viewed as a
component link, and each component link can carry one or more types component link, and each component link can carry one or more types
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
Maximum LSP Bandwidth Maximum LSP Bandwidth
The MAX LSP Bandwidth field is used according to [RFC4203]: i.e., 0 The MAX LSP Bandwidth field is used according to [RFC4203]: i.e., 0
<= MAX LSP Bandwidth <= ODUk/OTUk, and intermediate values are those <= MAX LSP Bandwidth <= ODUk/OTUk, and intermediate values are those
on the branch of OTN switching hierarchy supported by the interface. on the branch of OTN switching hierarchy supported by the interface.
For example, in the OTU4 link it could be possible to have ODU4 as For example, in the OTU4 link it could be possible to have ODU4 as
MAX LSP Bandwidth for some priorities, ODU3 for others, ODU2 for some MAX LSP Bandwidth for some priorities, ODU3 for others, ODU2 for some
others, etc. The bandwidth unit is in bytes per second and the others, etc. The bandwidth unit is in bytes per second and the
encoding MUST be in Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers encoding MUST be in Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE) floating point format. The discrete values for various ODUs (IEEE) floating point format. The discrete values for various ODUs
is shown in the table below (please note that there are 1000 bits in are shown in the table below (please note that there are 1000 bits in
a kbit according to normal practices in telecommunications). a kbit according to normal practices in telecommunications).
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| ODU Type | ODU nominal bit rate |Value in Byte/Sec| | ODU Type | ODU nominal bit rate |Value in Byte/Sec|
| | |(floating p. val)| | | |(floating p. val)|
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| ODU0 | 1,244,160 kbit/s | 0x4D1450C0 | | ODU0 | 1,244,160 kbit/s | 0x4D1450C0 |
| ODU1 | 239/238 x 2,488,320 kbit/s | 0x4D94F048 | | ODU1 | 239/238 x 2,488,320 kbit/s | 0x4D94F048 |
| ODU2 | 239/237 x 9,953,280 kbit/s | 0x4E959129 | | ODU2 | 239/237 x 9,953,280 kbit/s | 0x4E959129 |
| ODU3 | 239/236 x 39,813,120 kbit/s | 0x4F963367 | | ODU3 | 239/236 x 39,813,120 kbit/s | 0x4F963367 |
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
|ODU flex resizable | Configured bit rate | MAX LSP | |ODU flex resizable | Configured bit rate | MAX LSP |
| | | BANDWIDTH | | | | BANDWIDTH |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
A single ISCD MAY be used for the advertisement of unbundled or A single ISCD MAY be used for the advertisement of unbundled or
bundled links supporting homogeneous multiplexing hierarchies and the bundled links supporting homogeneous multiplexing hierarchies and the
same TS (Tributary Slot) granularity. A different ISCD MUST be used same TS (Tributary Slot) granularity. A different ISCD MUST be used
for each different muxing hierarchy (muxing tree in the following for each different muxing hierarchy (muxing tree in the following
examples) and different TS granularity supported within the TE Link. examples) and different TS granularity supported within the TE Link.
In case a recived LSA is not formatted accordingly to the When a received LSA includes a sub-TLV not formatted accordingly to
requirements indicated in this document, the problem SHOULD be logged the precise specifications in this document, the problem SHOULD be
and the wrongly formatted LSA, TLV or Sub-TLV MUST NOT be used for logged and the wrongly formatted sub-TLV MUST NOT be used for path
the path computation until a newer version correctly formatted is computation.
received.
4.1. Switching Capability Specific Information 4.1. Switching Capability Specific Information
The technology specific part of the OTN-TDM ISCD may include a The technology specific part of the OTN-TDM ISCD may include a
variable number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs. Each sub-TLV variable number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs. Each sub-TLV
is encoded with the sub-TLV header as defined in [RFC3630] section is encoded with the sub-TLV header as defined in [RFC3630] section
2.3.2. The muxing hierarchy tree MUST be encoded as an order 2.3.2. The muxing hierarchy tree MUST be encoded as an order
independent list. Two types of Bandwidth sub-TLV are defined (TBA by independent list. Two types of Bandwidth sub-TLV are defined (TBA by
IANA). Note that type values are defined in this document and not in IANA). Note that type values are defined in this document and not in
[RFC3630]. [RFC3630].
skipping to change at page 15, line 40 skipping to change at page 15, line 40
Figure 8: Example 2 - TS granularity, T and S utilization Figure 8: Example 2 - TS granularity, T and S utilization
5.2.1. Example of different TS Granularities 5.2.1. Example of different TS Granularities
In this example, two interfaces with homogeneous hierarchies but In this example, two interfaces with homogeneous hierarchies but
different Tributary Slot Types are considered. The first one different Tributary Slot Types are considered. The first one
supports a [RFC4328] interface (TS granularity=2) while the second supports a [RFC4328] interface (TS granularity=2) while the second
one supports G.709-2012 interface with fallback procedure disabled one supports G.709-2012 interface with fallback procedure disabled
(TS granularity=3). Both of them support ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy (TS granularity=3). Both of them support ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy
and priorities 0 and 3. T and S bits values are not relevant to this and priorities 0 and 3. Suppose that in this interface the ODU3
example. For the advertisement of the capabilities of such signal type can be both switched or terminated, the ODU2 can only be
interfaces, two different ISCDs are used and the format of their terminated, and the ODU1 switched only. For the advertisement of the
SCSIs is as follows: capabilities of such interfaces, two different ISCDs are used and the
format of their SCSIs is as follows:
SCSI of ISCD 1 - TS granularity=2 SCSI of ISCD 1 - TS granularity=2
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 12 | | Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU1 | #stages= 2 |0|1| 0 |0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0| |Sig type=ODU1 | #stages= 2 |0|1| 0 |0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU3 | Padding (all zeros) | | Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU3 | Padding (all zeros) |
skipping to change at page 18, line 41 skipping to change at page 18, line 41
no information about the spatial allocation of the free TSs. no information about the spatial allocation of the free TSs.
An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth could be useful An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth could be useful
during the path computation process, as shown in the following during the path computation process, as shown in the following
example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) with MAX LSP example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) with MAX LSP
Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In the case where 50Gbps of Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In the case where 50Gbps of
Unreserved Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B, and 3 Unreserved Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B, and 3
ODUflex LSPs of 10 GBps each have to be restored, for sure only one ODUflex LSPs of 10 GBps each have to be restored, for sure only one
can be restored along Link B and it is probable, but not certain, can be restored along Link B and it is probable, but not certain,
that two of them can be restored along Link A. T, S and TS that two of them can be restored along Link A. T, S and TS
granularity fields are not relevant to this example. granularity fields are not relevant to this example (filled with Xs).
In the case of ODUflex advertisement, the Type 2 Bandwidth sub-TLV is In the case of ODUflex advertisement, the Type 2 Bandwidth sub-TLV is
used. used.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Unres/MAX-var) | Length = 72 | | Type = 2 (Unres/MAX-var) | Length = 72 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0| Priority(8) | |S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0| Priority(8) |
skipping to change at page 20, line 12 skipping to change at page 20, line 12
Figure 12: Example 3 - ODUflex advertisement Figure 12: Example 3 - ODUflex advertisement
5.4. Example of single stage muxing 5.4. Example of single stage muxing
Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link supporting single stage Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link supporting single stage
muxing of ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 and ODUflex, the supported hierarchy can muxing of ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 and ODUflex, the supported hierarchy can
be summarized in a tree as in the following figure. For sake of be summarized in a tree as in the following figure. For sake of
simplicity, we also assume that only priorities 0 and 3 are simplicity, we also assume that only priorities 0 and 3 are
supported. T, S and TS granularity fields are not relevant to this supported. T, S and TS granularity fields are not relevant to this
example. example(filled with Xs).
ODU1 ODU2 ODU3 ODUflex ODU1 ODU2 ODU3 ODUflex
\ \ / / \ \ / /
\ \ / / \ \ / /
\ \/ / \ \/ /
ODU4 ODU4
and the related SCSIs as follows: and the related SCSIs as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 22, line 23 skipping to change at page 22, line 23
| | | |
ODU3 ODU2 ODU3 ODU2
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
ODU4 ODU4
and supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement is composed by and supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement is composed by
the following Bandwidth sub-TLVs (T and S fields are not relevant to the following Bandwidth sub-TLVs (T and S fields are not relevant to
this example): this example and filled with Xs):
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 | | Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X| 1 |0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0| |Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X| 1 |0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1 | | Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 24, line 38 skipping to change at page 24, line 38
Component Link#1 Component Link#2 Component Link#1 Component Link#2
ODU2 ODU0 ODU2 ODU0 ODU2 ODU0 ODU2 ODU0
\ / \ / \ / \ /
| | | |
ODU3 ODU3 ODU3 ODU3
| | | |
ODU4 ODU4 ODU4 ODU4
Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement is Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement is
as follows (T, S and TS granularity fields are not relevant to this as follows (T, S and TS granularity fields are not relevant to this
example): example and filled with Xs):
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 | | Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0| |Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =2 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =2 | | Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =2 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 26, line 15 skipping to change at page 26, line 15
Component Link#1 Component Link#2 Component Link#1 Component Link#2
ODU2 ODU0 ODU1 ODU0 ODU2 ODU0 ODU1 ODU0
\ / \ / \ / \ /
| | | |
ODU3 ODU2 ODU3 ODU2
| | | |
ODU4 ODU4 ODU4 ODU4
Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement uses Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement uses
two different ISCDs, one for each hierarchy (T, S and TS granularity two different ISCDs, one for each hierarchy (T, S and TS granularity
fields are not relevant to this example). In the following figure, fields are not relevant to this example and filled with Xs). In the
the SCSI of each ISCD is shown: following figure, the SCSI of each ISCD is shown:
SCSI of ISCD 1 - Component Link#1 SCSI of ISCD 1 - Component Link#1
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 | | Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0| |Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |X|X|X X X|0 0 0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 28, line 48 skipping to change at page 28, line 48
| Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =80 | Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =80 | | Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =80 | Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =80 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Example 7 - Multi stage muxing - Non-homogeneous Figure 17: Example 7 - Multi stage muxing - Non-homogeneous
hierarchies - ISCD 2 hierarchies - ISCD 2
6. OSPFv2 scalability 6. OSPFv2 scalability
This document does not introduce OSPF scalability issues with respect This document does not introduce OSPF scalability issues with respect
to existing GMPLS encoding and does not require any modification to to existing GMPLS encoding and does not require any modification to
flooding frequency. Moreover the design of the encoding has been flooding frequency. Moreover, the design of the encoding has been
carried out taking into account bandwidth optimization, and in carried out taking into account bandwidth optimization, and in
particular: particular:
- Only unreserved and MAX LSP Bandwidth related to supported - Only unreserved and MAX LSP Bandwidth related to supported
priorities is advertised priorities are advertised
- With respect of fixed containers, only the number of available - With respect of fixed containers, only the number of available
containers is advertised instead of available bandwidth so to use containers is advertised instead of available bandwidth so to use
only 16 bits per container instead of 32 (as per former GMPLS only 16 bits per container instead of 32 (as per former GMPLS
encoding encoding
In order to further reduce the amount of data advertised it is In order to further reduce the amount of data advertised it is
RECOMMENDED to bundle component links with homogeneous hierarchies as RECOMMENDED to bundle component links with homogeneous hierarchies as
described in [RFC4201] and illustrated in Section 5.6. described in [RFC4201] and illustrated in Section 5.6.
skipping to change at page 29, line 34 skipping to change at page 29, line 34
nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes and nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes and
compute paths using only the appropriate nodes. compute paths using only the appropriate nodes.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document extends [RFC4203]. As with[RFC4203], it specifies the This document extends [RFC4203]. As with[RFC4203], it specifies the
contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used for contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used for
SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have
no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may
have an effect on the underlying transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) have an effect on the underlying transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH)
network. [RFC3630] suggests mechanisms such as [RFC2154] to protect network. [RFC3630] suggests mechanisms to protect the transmission
the transmission of this information, and those or other mechanisms of this information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to
should be used to secure and/or authenticate the information carried secure and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque
in the Opaque LSAs. LSAs.
For security threats, defensive techniques, monitoring/detection/ For security threats, defensive techniques, monitoring/detection/
reporting of security attacks and requirements please refer to reporting of security attacks and requirements please refer to
[RFC5920]. [RFC5920].
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Switching types 9.1. Switching types
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the
skipping to change at page 34, line 14 skipping to change at page 34, line 14
D.Li, "Information model for G.709 Optical Transport D.Li, "Information model for G.709 Optical Transport
Networks (OTN), work in progress Networks (OTN), work in progress
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09", June 2013. draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09", June 2013.
[OTN-SIG] F.Zhang, G.Zhang, S.Belotti, D.Ceccarelli, K.Pithewan, [OTN-SIG] F.Zhang, G.Zhang, S.Belotti, D.Ceccarelli, K.Pithewan,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control, work in progress Transport Networks Control, work in progress
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11", June 2013. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11", June 2013.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
34 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/