[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
RFC 6205
Network Working Group Tomohiro Otani(Ed.)
Internet Draft KDDI
Updates: RFC3471 Dan Li(Ed.)
Category: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: June 2011 December 9, 2010
Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt
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
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in
the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving and as a
consequence new equipment providing lambda switching capability has
been developed and is currently being deployed. [RFC3471] has
defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only has
significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength semantics
is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability in a
network composed of next generation lambda switch-capable equipment,
this document defines a standard lambda label format, which is
compliant with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) or [G.694.2](CWDM-grid).
This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the label format when Lambda
Switching is requested in an all optical network.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 2
2. Assumed network model and related problem statement........... 3
3. Label Related Formats ........................................ 6
3.1. Wavelength Labels ....................................... 6
3.2. DWDM Wavelength Label ................................... 7
3.3. CWDM Wavelength Label ................................... 8
4. Security Considerations ..................................... 10
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 10
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 10
7. References .................................................. 10
7.1. Normative References ................................... 10
7.2. Informative References ................................. 11
8. Author's Address ............................................ 12
9. Appendix A. DWDM Example .................................... 13
10. Appendix B. CWDM Example ................................... 13
1. Introduction
As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS
from supporting only packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC)
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
interfaces and switching to also include support for four new
classes of interfaces and switching:
o Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
o Time-Division Multiplex (TDM)
o Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
o Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).
A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed
to support new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in
[RFC3471].
This document presents details that are specific to the use of GMPLS
with Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) equipment. Technologies such as
Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplex (ROADM) and Wavelength
Cross-Connect (WXC) operate at the wavelength switching level.
[RFC3471] has defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only
has significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength
semantics is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability
in a network composed of lambda switch-capable equipment, this
document defines a standard lambda label format, which is compliant
with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) or [G.694.2](CWDM-grid).
2. Assumed network model and related problem statement
Figure 1 depicts an all-optically switched network consisting of
different vendor's optical network domains. Vendor A's network
consists of ROADM or WXC, and vendor B's network consists of number
of photonic cross-connect (PXC) and Dense wavelength division
multiplexing (DWDM) multiplexer & demultiplexer, otherwise both
vendors' networks might be based on the same technology.
In this case, the use of standardized wavelength label information is
quite significant to establish a wavelength-based LSP. It is also an
important constraint when conducting CSPF calculation for use by
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling,
[RFC3473]. The way the Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) is
performed is outside the scope of this document.
It is needless to say, a LSP must be appropriately provisioned
between a selected pair of ports not only within Domain A but also
over multiple domains satisfying wavelength constraints.
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
Figure 2 illustrates in detail the interconnection between Domain A
and Domain B.
|
Domain A (or Vendor A) | Domain B (or Vendor B)
|
Node-1 Node-2 | Node-6 Node-7
+--------+ +--------+ | +-------+ +-+ +-+ +-------+
| ROADM | | ROADM +---|------+ PXC +-+D| |D+-+ PXC |
| or WXC +========+ or WXC +---|------+ +-+W+=====+W+-+ |
| (LSC) | | (LSC) +---|------+ (LSC) +-+D| |D+-+ (LSC) |
+--------+ +--------+ | | +-|M| |M+-+ |
|| || | +++++++++ +-+ +-+ +++++++++
|| Node-3 || | ||||||| |||||||
|| +--------+ || | +++++++++ +++++++++
||===| WXC +===|| | | DWDM | | DWDM |
| (LSC) | | +--++---+ +--++---+
||===+ +===|| | || ||
|| +--------+ || | +--++---+ +--++---+
|| || | | DWDM | | DWDM |
+--------+ +--------+ | +++++++++ +++++++++
| ROADM | | ROADM | | ||||||| |||||||
| or WXC +========+ or WXC +=+ | +-+ +++++++++ +-+ +-+ +++++++++
| (LSC) | | (LSC) | | | |D|-| PXC +-+D| |D+-+ PXC |
+--------+ +--------+ +=|==+W|-| +-+W+=====+W+-+ |
Node-4 Node-5 | |D|-| (LSC) +-+D| |D+-+ (LSC) |
| |M|-| +-+M| |M+-+ |
| +-+ +-------+ +-+ +-+ +-------+
| Node-8 Node-9
Figure 1 Wavelength-based network model
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Domain A | Domain B |
| | |
| +---+ lambda 1 | +---+ |
| | |---------------|---------| | |
| WDM | N | lambda 2 | | N | WDM |
| =====| O |---------------|---------| O |===== |
| O | D | . | | D | O |
| T WDM | E | . | | E | WDM T |
| H =====| 2 | lambda n | | 6 |===== H |
| E | |---------------|---------| | E |
| R +---+ | +---+ R |
| | |
| N +---+ | +---+ N |
| O | | | | | O |
| D WDM | N | | | N | WDM D |
| E =====| O | WDM | | O |===== E |
| S | D |=========================| D | S |
| WDM | E | | | E | WDM |
| =====| 5 | | | 8 |===== |
| | | | | | |
| +---+ | +---+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Interconnecting details between two domains
In the scenario of Figure 1, consider the setting up of a
bidirectional LSP from ingress switch 1 to egress switch 9 using
GMPLS RSVP-TE. In order to satisfy wavelength continuity constraint,
a fixed wavelength (lambda 1) needs to be used in domain A and domain
B. A Path message will be used for signaling. The Path message will
contain the Upstream_Label object and a Label_Set object; both
containing the same value. The Label_Set object is made by only one
sub channel that must be same as the Upstream_Label object. The Path
setup will continue downstream to switch 9 by configuring each lambda
switch based on the wavelength label. If a node has a tunable
wavelength transponder, the tuning wavelength is considered as a part
of wavelength switching operation.
Not using a standardized label would add undue burden on the operator
to enforce policy as each manufacturer may decide on a different
representation and therefore each domain may have its own label
formats. Moreover, manual provisioning may lead to misconfiguration
if domain-specific labels are used.
Therefore, a wavelength label should be standardized in order to
allow interoperability between multiple domains; otherwise
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
appropriate existing labels are identified in support of wavelength
availability. As identical wavelength information, the ITU-T
frequency grid specified in [G.694.1] for Dense WDM (DWDM) and
wavelength information in [G.694.2] for Coarse WDM (CWDM) are used by
LSRs and should be followed as a wavelength label.
3. Label Related Formats
To deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time
domains, several new forms of "label" have been defined in [RFC3471].
This section contains a definition of a Wavelength label based on
[G.694.1] or [G.694.2] for use by LSC LSRs.
3.1. Wavelength Labels
In section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471], a Wavelength label is defined to
have significance between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to
convert the received value into a value that has local significance.
LSC equipment uses multiple wavelengths controlled by a single
control channel. In a case, the label indicates the wavelength to be
used for the LSP. This document defines a standardize wavelength
label format. As an example of wavelength values, the reader is
referred to [G.694.1] which lists the frequencies from the ITU-T DWDM
frequency grid. The same can be done for CWDM technology by using
the wavelength defined in [G.694.2].
Since the ITU-T DWDM grid is based on nominal central frequencies, we
need to indicate the appropriate table, the channel spacing in the
grid and a value n that allows the calculation of the frequency. That
value can be positive or negative.
The frequency is calculated as such in [G.694.1]:
Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * channel spacing (THz)
Where "n" is a two's-complement integer (positive, negative or 0) and
"channel spacing" is defined to be 0.0125, 0.025, 0.05 or 0.1 THz.
When wider channel spacing such as 0.2 THz is utilized, the
combination of narrower channel spacing and the value "n" can provide
proper frequency with that channel spacing. Channel spacing is not
utilized to indicate the LSR capability but only to specify a
frequency in signaling.
For the other example of the case of the ITU-T CWDM grid, the spacing
between different channels was defined to be 20nm, so we need to pass
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
the wavelength value in nanometers(nm) in this case. Examples of CWDM
wavelengths are 1471, 1491, etc. nm.
The wavelength is calculated as follows
Wavelength (nm) = 1471 nm + n * 20 nm
Where "n" is a two's-complement integer (positive, negative or 0).
The grids listed in [G.694.1] and [G.694.2] are not numbered and
change with the changing frequency spacing as technology advances, so
an index is not appropriate in this case.
3.2. DWDM Wavelength Label
For the case of lambda switching (LSC) of DWDM, the information
carried in a Wavelength label is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(1) Grid: 3 bits
The value for grid is set to 1 for ITU-T DWDM Grid as defined in
[G.694.1].
+----------+---------+
| Grid | Value |
+----------+---------+
| Reserved | 0 |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T DWDM| 1 |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T CWDM| 2 |
+----------+---------+
|Future use| 3 - 7 |
+----------+---------+
(2) C.S.(channel spacing): 4 bits
DWDM channel spacing is defined as follows.
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
+----------+---------+
| C.S(GHz) | Value |
+----------+---------+
| Reserved | 0 |
+----------+---------+
| 100 | 1 |
+----------+---------+
| 50 | 2 |
+----------+---------+
| 25 | 3 |
+----------+---------+
| 12.5 | 4 |
+----------+---------+
|Future use| 5 - 15 |
+----------+---------+
(3) Identifier: 9 bits
The identifier field is a per-node assigned and scoped value. This
field MAY change on a per-hop basis. In all cases but one, a node MAY
select any value, including zero (0), for this field. Once selected,
the value MUST NOT change until the LSP is torn down and the value
MUST be used in all LSP related messages, e.g., in Resv messages and
label RRO subobjects. The sole special case occurs when this label
format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special
value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any
Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the
corresponding LSP.
(4) n: 16 bits
n is a two's-complement integer to take either a negative, zero or a
positive value. The value used to compute the frequency as shown
above.
3.3. CWDM Wavelength Label
For the case of lambda switching (LSC) of CWDM, the information
carried in a Wavelength label is:
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The structure of the label in the case of CWDM is the same as that of
DWDM case.
(1) Grid: 3 bits
The value for grid is set to 2 for ITU-T CWDM Grid as defined in
[G.694.2].
+----------+---------+
| Grid | Value |
+----------+---------+
| Reserved | 0 |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T DWDM| 1 |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T CWDM| 2 |
+----------+---------+
|Future use| 3 - 7 |
+----------+---------+
(2) C.S.(channel spacing): 4 bits
CWDM channel spacing is defined as follows.
+----------+---------+
| C.S(nm) | Value |
+----------+---------+
| Reserved | 0 |
+----------+---------+
| 20 | 1 |
+----------+---------+
|Future use| 2 - 15 |
+----------+---------+
(3) Identifier: 9 bits
The identifier field is a per-node assigned and scoped value. This
field MAY change on a per-hop basis. In all cases but one, a node MAY
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
select any value, including zero (0), for this field. Once selected,
the value MUST NOT change until the LSP is torn down and the value
MUST be used in all LSP related messages, e.g., in Resv messages and
label RRO subobjects. The sole special case occurs when this label
format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special
value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any
Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the
corresponding LSP.
(4) n: 16 bits
n is a two's-complement integer. The value used to compute the
wavelength as shown above.
We do not need to define a new type as the information stored is
either a port label or a wavelength label. Only the wavelength label
as above needs to be defined.
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to [RFC3473].
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues,
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, Lawrence
Mao, Zafar Ali and Daniele Ceccarelli for the discussion and their
comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January
2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
7.2. Informative References
[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.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
8. Author's Address
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishishinjuku Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo, 163-8003, Japan
Phone: +81-3-3347-6006
Email: tm-otani@kddi.com
Richard Rabbat
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu
Sidney Shiba
Email: sidney.shiba@yahoo.com
Hongxiang Guo
Email: hongxiang.guo@gmail.com
Keiji Miyazaki
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
4-1-1 Kotanaka Nakahara-ku,
Kawasaki Kanagawa, 211-8588, Japan
Phone: +81-44-754-2765
Email: miyazaki.keiji@jp.fujitsu.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
16153 Genova Cornigliano, ITALY
Phone: +390106003736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-70230
Email: danli@huawei.com
Takehiro Tsuritani
KDDI R&D Laboratories Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502, Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7806
Email: tsuri@kddilabs.jp
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
9. Appendix A. DWDM Example
Considering the network displayed in figure 1 it is possible to show
an example of LSP set up using the lambda labels.
Node 1 receives the request for establishing an LSP from itself to
Node 9. The ITU-T grid to be used is the DWDM one, the channel
spacing is 50Ghz and the wavelength to be used is 193,35 THz.
Node 1 signals the LSP via a Path message including a Wavelength
Label structured as defined in section 4.2:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:
Grid = 1 : ITU-T DWDM grid
C.S. = 2 : 50 GHz channel spacing
n = 5 :
Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * channel spacing (THz)
193.35 (THz) = 193.1 (THz) + n* 0.05 (THz)
n = (193.35-193.1)/0.05 = 5
10. Appendix B. CWDM Example
The network displayed in figure 1 can be used also to display an
example of signaling using the Wavelength Label in a CWDM
environment.
This time the signaling of an LSP from Node 4 to Node 7 is
considered. Such LSP exploits the CWDM ITU-T grid with a 20nm
channel spacing and is to established using wavelength equal to 1331
nm.
Node 4 signals the LSP via a Path message including a Wavelength
Label structured as defined in section 4.3:
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt December 2010
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:
Grid = 2 : ITU-T CWDM grid
C.S. = 1 : 20 nm channel spacing
n = -7 :
Wavelength (nm) = 1471 nm + n * 20 nm
1331 (nm) = 1471 (nm) + n * 20 nm
n = (1331-1471)/20 = -7
T. Otani et al. Expires June 2011 [Page 14]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/