[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Internet Engineering Task Force                       G. Galimberti, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               D. La Fauci
Intended status: Experimental                                      Cisco
Expires: September 7, 2020                               A. Zanardi, Ed.
                                                             L. Galvagni
                                                                     FBK
                                                               J. Meuric
                                                                  Orange
                                                           March 6, 2020


  Signaling extensions for Media Channel sub-carriers configuration in
Spectrum Switched Optical Networks (SSON) in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
                         Optical Line Systems.
            draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09

Abstract

   This memo defines the signaling extensions for managing Spectrum
   Switched Optical Network (SSON) parameters shared between the Client
   and the Network and inside the Network in accordance to the model
   described in [RFC7698].  The extensions are in accordance and
   extending the parameters defined in ITU-T Recommendation
   G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1] and its extensions and G.872.[ITU.G872].

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2020.





Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Client interface parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Signalling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  New LSP Request Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Extension to LSP set-up specification . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Common Signal Description TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Sub-carrier List Content TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.3.  Sub-carrier sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  RSVP Protocol Extensions Considerations . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is widely used in
   Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) to support the optical
   circuit set-up through the signalling between Core Nodes and Edge
   Nodes (reusing terminology from [RFC4208.  This extension addresses
   the use cases described by [RFC7698] Ch.3.3 and supports the
   information, needed in Spectrum Switched Optical Network (SSON), to
   signal a Media Channel and the associated carriers set request.  The
   new set of parameters is related to the Media Channel and the
   carrier(s) routed with it and keep the backward compatibility with
   the WSON signalling.  In particular this memo addresses the use cases
   where the SSON LSP (the Media Channel in RFC7698) use multiple



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   carrier (OTSi) to carry the Payload.  The set of the carriers can be
   seen as single Logical circuit.  This memo can be considered as the
   extension of [RFC7792].

   Figure 1 shows how the multiple carrier are mapped into a Media
   Channel.  A set of parameters must be shared on the UNI to allow the
   core control plane to do the proper routing and Spectrum Assignment
   and decide the carrier position.


      +------+       +------+  _________  +------+       +------+
      | E.N. |       | C.N. | /        /\ | C.N. |       | E.N. |
      |  OTS1| ----- |      ||        |  ||      | ----- |OTS1  |
    ==|  OTS2| ----- |      || Media  |  ||      | ----- |OTS2  |==
    ==|  OTS3| ----- |      || Channel|  ||      | ----- |OTS3  |==
      |  OTS4| ----- |      ||        |  ||      | ----- |OTS4  |
      |      |       | ROADM| \________\/ | ROADM|       |      |
      +------+       +------+             +------+       +------+
            ^         ^                         ^         ^
            |         |                         |         |
            +---UNI---+                         +---UNI---+


   E.N. = Edge Node (a.k.a. UNI Client / transceiver shelf)
   C.N. = Core Node (a.k.a. UNI Network / edge ROADM)
   ROADM = Lambda/Spectrum switch
   Media Channel = the optical circuit
   OTSi = Carriers belonging to the same Network Media Channel (or
          Super Channel)
   UNI = Signallig interface between E.N. and C.N.


                        Figure 1: Multi carrier LSP

2.  Client interface parameters

   The Edge Node interface can have one or multiple carriers (OTSi).
   All the carrier have the same characteristics and are provisionable
   in terms of:

   Number of subcarriers:
      This parameter indicates the number of subcarriers (OTSi)
      available for the super-channel (OTSiG) in case the Transceiver
      can support multiple carrier circuits.  The OTSi is defined in
      ITU-T Recommendation G.959.1, section 3.2.4 [G.959.1].  The OTSiG
      is currently being moved from ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G.709]
      to the new draft Recommendation G.807 (still work in progress)
      [G.807].  The OTSiG is an electrical signal that is carried by one



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


      or more OTSi's.  The relationship between the OTSiG and the OTSi's
      is described in ITU-T draft Recommendation G.807, section 10.2
      [G.807].  This draft specifies the case where the each carrier
      (OTSi) is terminated on a physical port so the rtansceiver can
      have multiple ports.  In future editions also the case where
      multiple carriers are terminated on the same port will be
      supported (also known as Sliceable Transponders).

   Central frequency (see G.694.1 Table 1):
      This parameter indicates the Central frequency value that Ss and
      Rs will be set to work (in THz).  See the details in Section 6/
      G.694.1 or based on "n" value explanation and the following "k"
      values definition in case of multicarrier transceivers.

   Central frequency granularity:
      This parameter indicates the Central frequency granularity
      supported by the transceiver, this value is combined with k and n
      value to calculate the central frequency of the carrier or sub-
      carriers.

   Minimum channel spacing:
      This is the minimum nominal difference in frequency (in GHz)
      between two adjacent channels (or carriers) depending on the
      Transceiver characteristics.

   Bit rate / Baud rate of Optical Tributary Signals (OTSi):
      Optical Tributary Signal bit (for NRZ signals) rate or Symbol (for
      Multiple bit per symbol) rate .

   FEC Coding:
      This parameter indicate what Forward Error Correction (FEC) code
      is used at Ss and Rs (R/W) (not mentioned in G.698.2).  .

   Wavelength Range (see G.694.1):  [ITU.G694.1]
      This parameter indicate minimum and maximum wavelength spectrum in
      a definite wavelength Band (L, C and S).  That is the transceiver
      tunability range

   Modulation format:
      This parameter indicates the list of supported Modulation Formats
      and the provisioned Modulation Format.

   Inter carrier skew:
      This parameter indicates, in case of multi-carrier LSP (OTSiG) the
      maximum skew between the sub-carriers OTSi) supported by the
      transceivers.

   Laser Output power:



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


      This parameter provisions the Transceiver Output power, it can be
      either a setting and measured value.

   Receiver input power:
      This parameter provisions the Min and Max input power supported by
      the Transceiver, i.e. Receiver Sensitivity.

   The above parameters are related to the Edge Node Transceiver and are
   used by the Core Network control plane in order to calculate the
   optical feasibility and the spectrum allocation.  The parameters can
   be shared between the Client and the Network via LMP or provisioned
   to the Network by an EMS or an operator OSS.

3.  Use Cases

   The use cases are described in [RFC7698]

4.  Signalling Extensions

   The following sections specify the fields used in the RSVP-TE Path
   and Resv messages to address the requirements above.  The above
   parameters could be applied to [RFC4208] scenarios but they are valid
   also in case of non UNI scenarios.  The [RFC7699] parameters remain
   valid.

4.1.  New LSP Request Parameters

   When the E.N. wants to request to the C.N. a new circuit set-up, i.e.
   the control plane wants to signal in the SSON network the Optical
   Interface characteristics, the following parameters will be provided
   to the C.N.:

   Number of available subcarriers (c):
      This parameter is an integer and identifies the number of OTSi in
      an OTSiG.  In this version of the document, it maps to the number
      of Client ports connected to the Core ports available to support
      the requested circuit.

   Total bandwidth request:
      e.g. 200Gb, 400Gb, 1Tb - it is the bandwidth (payload) to be
      carried by the multiple carrier circuit (OTSiG).  In alternative
      the OTUCn can be used

   Policy (strict/loose):
      Strict/loose referred to B/W and subcarrier number.  This is to
      give some flexibility to the GMPLS in order to commit client
      request.




Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Subcarrier bandwidth tunability:
      (optional) e.g. 34Ghz, 48GHz.

   The TLV define the resource constraints for the requested Media
   Channel.

   The format of the sub-object is as follows:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |S|B|     Reserved              |         Carrier Number        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Total Bandwidth                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: SSON LSP set-up request

   Carrier Number: number of carrier to be allocated for the requested
       channel (16-bit unsigned integer)
       If Carrier Number == 0 no constraint set on the number of
       carriers to be used

   Total Bandwidth: the requested total bandwidth to be supported by
       the Media Channel (32-bit IEEE float, bytes/s)
       If Total Bandwidth == 0: no bandwidth constraint is defined
       (B must be 0)

   S strict number of subcarrier
    -  S = 0 the number of requested carriers is the maximum number
             that can be allocated (a lower value can be allocated if
             the requested bandwidth is satisfied)
    -  S = 1 the number of requested carriers is strict (must be > 0)

   B Bandwidth constraints
    - B = 0: the value is the maximum requested bandwidth (a lower
             value can be allocated if resources are not available)
    - B = 1: the requested bandwidth is the minimum value to be
             allocated (a higher value can be allocated if requested
             by the physical constraints of the ports)

   Reserved: unused bit (for future use, should be 0)









Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Note: bandwidth unit is defined in accordance to RFC 3471
      chap. 3.1.2 Bandwith Encoding specification.  Bandwidth higher
      than 40Gb/s values must be defined (e.g. 100Gb/s, 150Gb/s
      400Gb/s, etc.) or in alternative the OTUCn defined in
      ITU-T G.709.

   TLV Usage in RSVP-TE message:
   Path from head E.N.: requested traffic constraints, the Head C.N.
       must satisfy when reserving the optical resources and
       defining the carriers configuration
   The TLV can be omitted: no traffic constraints is defined
       (resources allocated by C.N. based on a local policy)

4.2.  Extension to LSP set-up specification

   Once the WDM comtrol plane has calculated the Media Channel path, the
   Spectrum Allocation, the Sub-carrier number and frequency, the
   modulation format, the FEC and the Transmit power, it MUST send back
   to the E.N. the path set-up confirmation providing the values of the
   calculated parameters:

   Media Channel:
      (Grid, C.S., Identifier m and n). as indicated in RFC7699
      Section 4.1

   Modulation format:
      This parameter indicates the Modulation Formats to be set in the
      Transceivers.

   FEC Coding:
      This parameter indicate what Forward Error Correction (FEC) code
      must be used by the Transceivers (not mentioned in G.698).  .

   Baud rate of optical tributary signals:
      Symbol (for Multiple bit per symbol) rate.

   List of subcarriers:
      This parameter indicates the subcarriers to be used for the super-
      channel (OTSiG) in case the Transceiver can support multiple
      carrier Circuits.

   Central frequency granularity (J):
      This parameter indicates the Central frequency granularity
      supported by the transceiver, this value is combined with K and n
      value to calculate the central frequency on the carrier or sub-
      carriers.

   Central frequency (see G.694.1 Table 1):



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


      Grid, Identifiers, central frequency and granularity.

   Laser Output power:
      This parameter provisions the Transceiver Output power, it can be
      either a setting and measured value.

   Circuit Path, RRO, etc:
      All these info are defined in [RFC4208].

   Path Error:
      e.g. no path exist, all the path error defined in [RFC4208].

4.2.1.  Common Signal Description TLV

   The TLV defines the carriers signal configuration.
   All carriers in a Media Channel MUST have the same configuration.

   The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA) is
   as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Modulation ID         |           Bit/Symbol          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              FEC              |       Min OSNR Threshold      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         baud rate  (Symbol Rate)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 3: OCh_General




















Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Traffic Type
   - Modulation ID (Format) : is the modulation type:
         BPSK, DC DP BSPSK, QPSK, DP QPSK, 8QAM, 16QAM,
         32QAM, 64QAM, etc.
   - Bits/Symbol(BPS) this indicates the bit per symbol in case of
      hybrid modulation format. It is an off-set with values from 0
      to 127 to be applied to the specified Modulation Format and
      indicates the mix between the selected Modulation Format and its
      upper adjacent.
      (e.g. QPSK + 63 BPS indicates that there is a 50% MIX between
      QPSK and 8-QAM = 2.5 bits per symbol) If value = 0 the
      standard Modulation Format is applied
   - FEC: the signal Forward Error Corrections type (16-bit
            unsigned integer), the defined values are:
            - Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
   - Min OSNR Threshold: An integer specifying the minimum accepted
        threshold for the Optical Signal-Noise Ratio in 0.1 nm.
   - Baud Rate: the signal symbol rate (IEEE 32-bit float,
              in bauds/s)
            - Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined

   Notes:
   - The Path message from the E.C. can specify all or
     only a subset of the parameters (e.g. the Modulation and the
     baud rate as required but not the FEC) setting to 0 for the
     undefined parameters.
     When forwarding the Path message, the C.N. will set the
     undefined parameters based on the optical impairment calculation
     and the constraints given by the E.N.
   - Custom codes (values > 0x8000) interpretation is a local
     installation matter.

   TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
   - Path from the head E.N.: used to force specific transponder
     configurations
   - Path from the tail C.N.: set selected configuration on head node
   - Resv from the head C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node

4.2.2.  Sub-carrier List Content TLV












Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   For Each carrier inside the Media Channel the TLV is used.

   The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
    is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Carrier Index          |               j               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               k                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            sub-TLVs                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 4: Sub-Carrier parameters



































Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Carrier setup:

   - Carrier Index field: sub-carrier (OTSi) index
         inside the OTSiG (corresponding to the media channel).
         Identifies the carrier
         position inside the Media Channel (16-bit unsigned integer)
         The Carrier Index is the logical circuit sub-lane
         position, a TLV for each value from 1 to the number of
         allocated carriers must be present.
   - J field:  granularity of the channel spacing, can be a
         multiple of 0.01GHz. - default value is 0.1GHz.
   - K field:  positive or negative integer (including 0) to multiply
         by J and identify the Carrier Position inside the
         Media Channel, offset from media Channel Central frequency
   - sub-TLVs: additional information related to carriers if needed
         and the ports associated to the carrier.

     In summary Carrier Frequency = MC-C.F. (in THz) + K * J GHz.

                                   m=8
    +-------------------------------X------------------------------+
    |                               |                              |
    |           sub-carrier                    sub-carrier         |
    |     +----------X----------+   |   +----------X----------+    |
    |     |        OTSi         |       |         OTSi        |    |
    |     |          o          |   |   |          o          |    |
    |     |          |          |       |          |          |    |
   -4  -3  -2  -1   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12
   -+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-
                     |             n=4             |
                     K1    -236     |     +236     K2

    <------------------------ Media Channel ----------------------->



4.2.3.  Sub-carrier sub-TLV

   The defined sub-TLVs are Port Identifiers and Carrier Power












Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Source Port Identifier

   The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8) is
   as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type (TBA)         |    reserved   |   Length = 8  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Source Port Identifier                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 5: Source Port Identifier


   Source Port Identifier: the HEAD E.N. optical logical source end
   point identifier (32-bits integer, ifindex)


   TLV Usage in RSVP-TE message:
        - path from the head E.N.: used to force specific carrier ports
          [optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario]
        - Path from the tail C.N.: report selected carrier head ports
          to tail C.N.
        - Resv: report selected configuration to head E.N.


   Destination Port Identifier

   The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8) is
   as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type (TBA)         |   reserved    |   Length = 8  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Destination Port Identifier                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 6: Destination Port Identifiers









Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Destination Port Identifier: the local upstream optical logical
       destination end point identifier (32-bits integer, ifindex)

   TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
        - Path from head E.N.: used to force specific carrier ports
          [optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario]
        - Path from tail C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node
        - Resv: report selected configuration to the head E.N.


   Carrier Power

   The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8)
   is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type (TBA)         |  reserved     |   Length = 8  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          carrier power                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 7: Carrier Power

   Carrier Power: the requested carrier transmit power (32-bits IEEE
               Float, dBm), optionally used to notify the configured
               power (from E.N. to C.N.) or force the power to from
               the C.N. to the E.N.

   TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
   - Path from head the E.N.: used to force specific carrier
     frequency/ports (optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario)
   - Path from tail C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node
   - Resv from the head C.N.: set selected configuration on head node

4.3.  RSVP Protocol Extensions Considerations

   The additional information described in the draft, is related to the
   Media Channel supported traffic.  The parameters to be used by the
   egress transceivers are carried in Path messages.  In RSVP-TE
   signaling, hop-specific information is encoded within the ERO as hop
   attributes and WDM parameters are to be carried as sub-TLVs within
   the Type 4 TLV [RFC7689], in the Hop Attributes SubObject

   Beside, some of the additional information defined is local to the
   head/tail UNI link (e.g. the carrier/port association), while the
   traffic spec info should be valid end-to-end.



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   There can be different methods to model and signal the carriers as
   described in draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang.  The
   Media Channel, Network Media Channel and lables are well modelled by
   the RFC7698, RFC7699 and RFC7792 reflecting the ITU-T Recommendations
   G.694.1 and G.698.2.

   Some work is in progress in ITU-T SG15/Q12 to define Network Media
   Channel (group) that is capable of accommodating the optical
   tributary signals (OTSi) belonging to optical tributary signal group
   (OTSiG) (see new ITU-T Draft Recommendation G.807).

   Other the encoding proposal reported in this draft, there are several
   at least two other methods to describe the parameters.  An option is
   to describe the OTSi carrier frequency relative to the anchor
   frequency 193.1THz based on a well-defined granularity (e.g.  OTSi
   carrier frequency = 193100 (GHz) + K * granularity (GHz) where K is a
   signed integer value).  A second option is to explicitly describe the
   OTSi carrier frequency and the OTSi signal width in GHz with a
   certain accuracy.

   The second option which is independent of the n, m values already
   defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1.  The OTSi carrier frequency
   is described in GHz with 3 fractional digits (decimal 64 fraction
   digits 3).  The OTSi signal width is described in GHz with 3
   fractional digits (decimal 64 fraction digits 3) and includes the
   signal roll off as well as some guard band.

   The accuracy of 0.001 GHz does not impose a requirement on the
   optical transceiver components (optical transmitter) in terms of
   carrier frequency tunability precision.  Today's components typically
   provide a tunability precision in the range of 1..1.5GHz (carrier
   frequency offset compared to the configured nominal carrier
   frequency).
   Future components may provide a better precision as technology
   evolves.  If needed, a controller may retrieve the transceiver
   properties in terms of carrier frequency tunability precision in
   order to be capable of properly configuring the underlying
   transceiver.

   NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: As this description is arbitrarily proposed by
   the authors to cover a lack of information in IETF and ITU-T, a
   liaison request to ITU-T is needed.  The authors are willing to
   contribute to Liaison editing and to consider any feedback and
   proposal from ITU-T.







Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


5.  Security Considerations

   RSVP-TE message security is described in [RFC5920].  IPsec and HMAC-
   MD5 authentication are common examples of existing mechanisms.  This
   document only defines new UNI objects that are carried in existing
   UNI messages, thus it does not introduce new security considerations.

6.  IANA Considerations











































Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


      The IANA is requested to create, within the "GMPLS Signaling
      Parameters" registry, two new sub-registries named "WDM
      Modulation Formats" and "WDM FEC Types".

      For both of them:

      o  the value 0 means "Pending selection",

      o  the range 1-65503 follows the Expert Review policy for
         registration,

      o  the range 65504-65535 is for experimental use.

      The "WDM Modulation Format" sub-registry is initialized as
      follows:

                       +-------------+---------------------+
                       | Value       |  Modulation Format  |
                       +-------------+---------------------+
                       | 0           | Pending selection   |
                       | 1           | DPSK                |
                       | 2           | QPSK                |
                       | 3           | 8-QAM               |
                       | 4           | 16-QAM              |
                       | 5           | 32-QAM              |
                       | 6           | 64-QAM              |
                       | 7-63999     | Unallocated         |
                       | 64000-65535 | Vendor specific use |
                       +-------------+---------------------+

      The "WDM FEC Types" sub-registry is initialized as follows:

                       +-------------+---------------------+
                       | Value       | FEC Types           |
                       +-------------+---------------------+
                       | 0           | Pending selection   |
                       | 1           | Reed Solomon FEC    |
                       | 2           | Staircase FEC       |
                       | 3           | O-FEC.              |
                       | 4-63999     | Unallocated         |
                       | 64000-65535 | Vendor specific use |
                       +-------------+---------------------+









Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


7.  Contributors

        Antonello Bonfanti
           Cisco
           Via Santa Maria Molgora, 48 c
           20871 - Vimercate (MB)
           Italy
           abonfant@cisco.com

        Esther Le Rouzic
           Orange
           2 avenue Pierre Marzin
           Lannion 22300
           France
           esther.lerouzic@orange.com

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [ITU.G694.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
              for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.

   [ITU.G698.2]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
              multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
              applications with single channel optical interfaces",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.

   [ITU.G709]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
              Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.709, June 2016.

   [ITU.G872]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
              optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
              January 2017.

   [ITU.G874.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
              network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
              model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.874.1, November 2016.





Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.

   [RFC4208]  Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
              Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
              Model", RFC 4208, DOI 10.17487/RFC4208, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4208>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
              "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
              RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.

   [RFC6205]  Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
              Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
              RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.

   [RFC7698]  Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F.,
              Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and
              Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
              Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks",
              RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698>.







Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   [RFC7699]  Farrel, A., King, D., Li, Y., and F. Zhang, "Generalized
              Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
              Label Switching Routers", RFC 7699, DOI 10.17487/RFC7699,
              November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7699>.

   [RFC7792]  Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
              and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
              Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
              Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3410>.

   [RFC4181]  Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
              MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
              September 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4181>.

Authors' Addresses

   Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
   Cisco
   Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
   20871 - Vimercate
   Italy

   Phone: +390392091462
   Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com


   Domenico La Fauci
   Cisco
   Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
   20871 - Vimercate
   Italy

   Phone: +390392091946
   Email: dlafauci@cisco.com



Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Drafdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-09  March 2020


   Andrea Zanardi (editor)
   FBK
   via alla Cascata 56/D
   38123 Povo, Trento
   Italy

   Phone: +390461312450
   Email: azanardi@fbk.eu


   Lorenzo Galvagni
   FBK
   via alla Cascata 56/D
   38123 Povo, Trento
   Italy

   Phone: +390461312427
   Email: lgalvagni@fbk.eu


   Julien Meuric
   Orange
   2 avenue Pierre Marzin
   Lannion 22300
   France

   Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
























Galimberti, et al.      Expires September 7, 2020              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/