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

Versions: (draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 7138

CCAMP Working Group                                   D. Ceccarelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               D. Caviglia
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: February 28, 2013                                      F. Zhang
                                                                   D. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                              S. Belotti
                                                               P. Grandi
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                                  R. Rao
                                                             K. Pithewan
                                                    Infinera Corporation
                                                                J. Drake
                                                                 Juniper
                                                         August 27, 2012


  Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
                 Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03

Abstract

   The recent revision of ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-V3] has
   introduced new fixed and flexible ODU containers, enabling optimized
   support for an increasingly abundant service mix.

   This document describes OSPF routing protocol extensions to support
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) control of all currently defined ODU
   containers, in support of both sub-lambda and lambda level routing
   granularity.

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 http://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 February 28, 2013.



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  OSPF-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  TE-Link Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  ISCD format extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Switch Capability Specific Information . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Example of T,S and TSG utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.1.  Example of different TSGs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.3.  Example of ODUflex advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.4.  Example of single stage muxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.5.  Example of multi stage muxing - Unbundled link . . . . . . 22
     5.6.  Example of multi stage muxing - Bundled links  . . . . . . 23
     5.7.  Example of component links with non homogeneous
           hierarchies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   6.  Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31








Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


1.  Introduction

   G.709 OTN [G709-V3] includes new fixed and flexible ODU containers,
   two types of Tributary Slots (i.e., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps), and
   supports various multiplexing relationships (e.g., ODUj multiplexed
   into ODUk (j<k)), two different tributary slots for ODUk (K=1, 2, 3)
   and ODUflex service type, which is being standardized in ITU-T.  In
   order to present this information in the routing process, this
   document provides OTN technology specific encoding for OSPF-TE.

   For a short overview of OTN evolution and implications of OTN
   requirements on GMPLS routing please refer to [OTN-FWK].  The
   information model and an evaluation against the current solution are
   provided in [OTN-INFO].

   The routing information for Optical Channel Layer (OCh) (i.e.,
   wavelength) is out of the scope of this document.  Please refer to
   [WSON-Frame] for further information.

1.1.  Terminology

   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].


2.  OSPF-TE Extensions

   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
   of ODUj (j<k).

   Each TE LSA can carry a top-level link TLV with several nested sub-
   TLVs to describe different attributes of a TE link.  Two top-level
   TLVs are defined in [RFC 3630]. (1) The Router Address TLV (referred
   to as the Node TLV) and (2) the TE link TLV.  One or more sub-TLVs
   can be nested into the two top-level TLVs.  The sub-TLV set for the
   two top-level TLVs are also defined in [RFC 3630] and [RFC 4203].

   As discussed in [OTN-FWK] and [OTN-INFO], the OSPF-TE must be
   extended so to be able to advertise the termination and switching
   capabilites related to each different ODUj and ODUk/OTUk and the
   advertisement of related multiplexing capabilities.  This leads to
   the need to define a new Switching Capability value and associated
   new Switching Capability for the ISCD.

   In the following we will use ODUj to indicate a service type that is
   multiplexed into an higher order ODU, ODUk an higher order ODU



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   including an ODUj and ODUk/OTUk to indicate the layer mapped into the
   OTUk.  Moreover ODUj(S) and ODUk(S) are used to indicate ODUj and
   ODUk supporting switching capability only, and the ODUj->ODUk format
   is used to indicate the ODUj into ODUk multiplexing capability.

   This notation can be iterated as needed depending on the number of
   multiplexing levels.  In the following the term "multiplexing tree"
   is used to identify a multiplexing hierarchy where the root is always
   a server ODUk/OTUk and any other supported multiplexed container is
   represented with increasing granularity until reaching the leaf of
   the tree.  The tree can be structured with more than one branch if
   the server ODUk/OTUk supports more than one hierarchy.

   If for example a multiplexing hierarchy like the following one is
   considered:



             ODU2 ODU0    ODUflex ODU0
                \ /            \ /
                 |              |
               ODU3           ODU2
                  \            /
                   \          /
                    \        /
                     \      /
                       ODU4


   The ODU4 is the root of the muxing tree, ODU3 and ODU2 are containers
   directly multiplexed into the server and then ODU2, ODU0 are the
   leaves of the ODU3 branch, while ODUflex and ODU0 are the leaves of
   the ODU2 one.  This means that on this traffic card it is possible to
   have the following multiplexing capabilities:


           ODU2->ODU3->ODU4
           ODU0->ODU3->ODU4
           ODUflex->ODU2->ODU4
           ODU0->ODU2->ODU4



3.  TE-Link Representation

   G.709 ODUk/OTUk Links are represented as TE-Links in GMPLS Traffic
   Engineering Topology for supporting ODUj layer switching.  These TE-
   Links can be modeled in multiple ways.  Some of the prominent



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   representations are captured below.

   OTUk physical Link(s) can be modeled as a TE-Link(s).  The TE-Link is
   termed as OTUk-TE-Link.  The OTUk-TE-Link advertises ODUj switching
   capacity.  The advertised capacity could include ODUk switching
   capacity.  Figure-1 below provides an illustration of one hop ODUk
   TE-links.


           +-------+               +-------+               +-------+
           |  OTN  |               |  OTN  |               |  OTN  |
           |Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |
           |   A   |               |   B   |               |   C   |
           +-------+               +-------+               +-------+

                   |<-- TE-Link -->|       |<-- TE-Link -->|


                          Figure 1: ODUk TE-Links

   It is possible to create TE-Links that span more than one hop by
   creating FA between non-adjacent nodes.  Such TE-Links are also
   termed ODUk-TE-Links.  As in the one hop case, these types of ODUk-
   TE-Links also advertise ODUj switching capacity.  The advertised
   capacity could include ODUk switching capacity.


           +-------+               +-------+               +-------+
           |  OTN  |               |  OTN  |               |  OTN  |
           |Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |
           |   A   |               |   B   |               |   C   |
           +-------+               +-------+               +-------+
                                 ODUk Switched

                   |<------------- ODUk Link ------------->|
                   |<-------------- TE-Link--------------->|


                      Figure 2: Multiple hop TE-Link


4.  ISCD format extensions

   The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor describes switching
   capability of an interface [RFC 4202].  This document defines a new
   Switching Capability value for OTN [G.709-v3] as follows:





Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   Value                       Type
   -----                       ----
   101 (TBA by IANA)           OTN-TDM capable (OTN-TDM)


   Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows:


        Switching Capability = OTN-TDM
        Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) [as defined in RFC4328]


   Both fixed and flexible ODUs use the same switching type and encoding
   values.  When Switching Capability and Encoding fields are set to
   values as stated above, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
   MUST be interpreted 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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                Switch Capability Specific Information         |
         |                        (variable length)                      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Maximum LSP Bandwidth

   The MAX LSP bandwidth field is used according to [RFC4203]: i.e. 0 <=
   Max LSP Bandwidth <= ODUk/OTUk and intermediate values are those on



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   the branch of OTN switching hierarchy supported by the interface.
   E.g. in the OTU4 link it could be possible to have ODU4 as MAX LSP
   Bandwidth for some priorities, ODU3 for others, ODU2 for some others
   etc.  The bandwidth unit MUST be in bytes per second and the encoding
   MUST be in IEEE floating point format.  The discrete values for
   various ODUs is shown in the table below.


+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
|      ODU Type        |      ODU nominal bit rate       |Value in Byte/Sec |
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
|        ODU0          |        1 244 160 kbits/s        |    0x4D1450C0    |
|        ODU1          |   239/238 x 2 488 320 kbit/s    |    0x4D94F048    |
|        ODU2          |   239/237 x 9 953 280 kbit/s    |    0x4E959129    |
|        ODU3          |   239/236 x 39 813 120 kbit/s   |    0X4F963367    |
|        ODU4          |   239/227 x 99 532 800 kbit/s   |    0x504331E3    |
|        ODU2e         |   239/237 x 10 312 500 kbit/s   |    0x4E9AF70A    |
|                      |                                 |                  |
|   ODUflex for CBR    |                                 |     MAX LSP      |
|   Client signals     |239/238 x client signal bit rate |    BANDWIDTH     |
|                      |                                 |                  |
|  ODUflex for GFP-F   |                                 |     MAX LSP      |
|Mapped client signal  |       Configured bit rate       |    BANDWIDTH     |
|                      |                                 |                  |
|                      |                                 |                  |
| ODU flex resizable   |       Configured bit rate       |     MAX LSP      |
|                      |                                 |    BANDWIDTH     |
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+


   A single ISCD MAY be used for the advertisement of unbundled or
   bundled links supporting homogeneous multiplexing hierarchies and the
   same Tributary Slot Granularity (TSG).  A different ISCD MUST be used
   for each different muxing hierarchy (muxing tree in the following
   examples) and different TSG supported within the TE Link, if it
   includes component links with differing characteristics.

4.1.  Switch Capability Specific Information

   The technology specific part of the OTN ISCD may include a variable
   number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.  The muxing hierarchy
   tree MUST be encoded as an order independent list of them.  Two types
   of Bandwidth TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):

      - Type 1 - Unreserved Bandwidth for fixed containers

      - Type 2 - Unreserved/MAX LSP Bandwidth for flexible containers




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   The format of the SCSI MUST be as depicted in the following figure:


   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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                         Fixed Container                       |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                               ...                             ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type = 2 (Unres/MAX-var)  |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                      Variable Container                       |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                           Figure 3: SCSI format

   The format of the two different types of Bandwidth TLV are depicted
   in the following figures:
























Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Signal type  | Num of stages |T|S| TSG | Res |   Priority    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Stage#1    |      ...      |   Stage#N     |    Padding    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODUj at Prio 0      |     Unres ODUj at Prio 1      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODUj at Prio 2      |     Unres ODUj at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODUj at Prio 4      |     Unres ODUj at Prio 5      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODUj at Prio 6      |     Unres ODUj at Prio 7      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 4: Bandwidth TLV - Type 1 -

   The values of the fields shown in figure 4 are explained after figure
   6.




























Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   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 = 2 (Unres/MAX-var)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Signal type  | Num of stages |T|S| TSG | Res |   Priority    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Stage#1    |      ...      |   Stage#N     |    Padding    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 1             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 2             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 4             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 5             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 6             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 7             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 1               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 2               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 4               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 5               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 6               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 7               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 5: Bandwidth TLV - Type 2 -

      - Signal Type: Indicates the ODU type being advertised





Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


            Value        Type
            -----        ------
            1            ODU1
            2            ODU2
            3            ODU3
            4            ODU4
            10           ODU0
            11           ODU2e
            20           ODUflex CBR
            21           ODUflex GFP-F resizable
            22           ODUflex GFP-F non resizable
            230-256      Experimental


         With respect to ODUflex, ODUflex CBR and ODUflex GFP-F MUST
         always be advertised separately as they use different
         adaptation functions.  In the case both GFP-F resizable and non
         resizable (i.e. 21 and 22) are supported, Signal Type 21
         implicitely supports also signal Signal Type 22, so only Signal
         Type 21 MUST be advertised.  Signal Type 22 MUST be used only
         for non resizable resources.

      - Number of stages: Indicates the number of multiplexing stages
      level.  It MUST be equal to 0 when a server layer is being
      advertised, 1 in case of single stage muxing, 2 in case of dual
      stage muxing, etc.

      - Flags:

         - T Flag (bit 17): Indicates whether the advertised bandwidth
         can be terminated.  When T=1, the signal type can be
         terminated, when T=0, the signal type cannot be terminated.

         - S Flag (bit 18): Indicates whether the advertised bandwidth
         can be switched.  When S=1, the signal type can be switched,
         when S=0, the signal type cannot be switched.

         The value 00 in both T and S bits MUST NOT be used.

      - TSG: Tributary Slot Granularity (3bit): Used for the
      advertisement of the supported Tributary Slot granularity

         - 0 - Reserved

         - 1 - 1.25 Gbps/2.5Gbps

         - 2 - 2.5 Gbps only




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


         - 3 - 1.25 Gbps only

         - 4 - Don't care

         - 5-7 - Reserved

      Where value 1 is used on those interfaces where the fallback
      procedure is enabled and the default value of 1.25 Gbps can be
      falled back to 2.5 if needed.  Values 2 and 3 are used where there
      is no chance to modify the TSG.  In the former case the interface
      being advertised is a G.709v1 and in the latter the interface is a
      G.709v3 with fallback procedure disabled or unavailable.  Value 4
      is used for non multiplexed signal (i.e. non OTN client).

      - Priority :8 bits field with 1 flag for each priority.  Bit set
      indicates priority supported, bit cleared means priority not
      supported.  The priority 0 is related to the most significant bit.
      When no priority is supported, priority 0 MUST be advertised.

      - Stage#1 ...  Stage#N : These fields are 8 bits long.  Their
      number is variable and a field is present for each stage of the
      muxing hierarchy.  The last one MUST always indicate the server
      ODU container (ODUk/OTUk).  The values of the Stage fields MUST be
      the same ones defined for the Signal Type field.  If the number of
      stages is 0, then no Stage fields MUST be included.

      - Padding: Given that the number of Stages is variable, padding to
      32 bits field MUST be used when needed.

      - Unreserved Bandwidth/Max LSP BW : In case of fixed containers
      (Type=1) the Unreserved Bandwidth field MUST be 16 bits long and
      indicates the Unreserved Bandwidth in number of available
      containers.  Only Unreserved/MAX LSP BW fields for supported
      priorities MUST be included, in order of increasing prioritiy (0
      to 7).  In case the number of supported priorities is odd, a 16
      bits all zeros padding field MUST be added.  On the other hand, in
      case of variable containers (Type 2) the Unreserved/MAX LSP
      Bandwidth fields MUST be 32 bits long and expressed in IEEE
      floating point format.  The advertisement of the MAX LSP bandwidth
      MUST take into account HO OPUk bit rate tolerance and be
      calculated according to the following formula:

         Max LSP BW = (# available TS) * (ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate) *
         (1-HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)

      Only Unreserved/MAX LSP bandwidth for supported priorities MUST be
      advertised.




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


5.  Examples

   The examples in the following pages are not normative and are not
   intended to infer or mandate any specific implementation.

5.1.  MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD

   This example shows how the MAX LSP Bandwidth fields of the ISCD are
   filled accordingly to the evolving of the TE-link bandwidth
   occupancy.  In the example an OTU4 link is considered, with supported
   priorities 0,2,4,7 and muxing hierarchy ODU1->ODU2->ODU3->ODU4.

   At time T0, with the link completely free, the advertisement would
   be:


         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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                Switch Capability Specific Information         |
         |                        (variable length)                      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Figure 6: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T0

   At time T1 an ODU3 at priority 2 is set-up, so for priority 0 the MAX
   LSP Bandwidth is still equal to the ODU4 bandwidth, while for
   priorities from 2 to 7 (excluding the non supported ones) the MAX LSP
   Bandwidth is equal to ODU3, as no more ODU4s are available and the



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   next supported ODUj in the hierarchy is ODU3.The advertisement is
   updated 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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 40Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 40Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 40Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                Switch Capability Specific Information         |
         |                        (variable length)                      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Figure 7: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T1

   At time T2 an ODU2 at priority 4 is set-up.  The first ODU3 is no
   longer available since T1 as it was kept by the ODU3 LSP, while the
   second is no more available and just 3 ODU2 are left in it.  ODU2 is
   now the MAX LSP bandwidth for priorities higher than 4.  The
   advertisement is updated as follows:














Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


         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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 40Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 10Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 10Gbps          |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                Switch Capability Specific Information         |
         |                        (variable length)                      |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Figure 8: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T2

5.2.  Example of T,S and TSG utilization

   In this example an interface with Tributary Slot Type 1.25 Gbps and
   fallback procedure enabled is considered (TSG=1).  It supports the
   simple ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy and priorities 0 and 3.  Suppose
   that in this interface the ODU3 signal type can be both switched or
   terminated, the ODU2 can only be terminated and the ODU1 switched
   only.  For the advertisement of the capabilities of such interface a
   single ISCD is used and its format is as follows:














Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU1  |  #stages= 2   |T0|S1|001| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU3  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 0      |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 1   |T1|S0|001| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  |                  Padding                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODU2 at Prio 0      |     Unres ODU2 at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU3  |  #stages= 0   |T1|S1|001| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODU3 at Prio 0      |     Unres ODU3 at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


              Figure 9: Example 2 - TSG, T and S utilization

5.2.1.  Example of different TSGs

   In this example two interfaces with homogeneous hierarchies but
   different Tributary Slot Types are considered.  The first one
   supports a G.709v1 interface (TSG=2) while the second one a G.709v3
   interface with fallback procedure disabled (TSG=3).  Both of them
   support ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy and priorities 0 and 3.  For the
   advertisement of the capabilities of such interfaces two different
   ISCDs are used and the format of their SCSIs is as follows:













Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   SCSI of ISCD 1 - TSG=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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU1  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| 2 |  Res  |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU3  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 0      |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   SCSI of ISCD 2 - TSG=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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU1  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| 3 |  Res  |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU3  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 0      |     Unres ODU1 at Prio 3      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            Figure 10: Example 2.1 - Different TSGs utilization

   A particular case in which hierarchies with the same muxing tree but
   with different exported TSG must be considered as non homogenous
   hierarchies is the case in which an H-LPS and the client LSP are
   terminated on the same egress node.  What can happen is that a loose
   ero is used at the hop where the signaled LSP is nested into the
   H-LSP (penultimate hop of the LSP).

   In the following figure, node C receives from A a loose ERO towards
   node E and must choose between the ODU2 H-LSP on if1 or the one on
   if2.  In case the H-LSP on if1 exports a TS=1,25Gbps and if2 a
   TS=2,5Gbps and the service LSP being signaled needs a 1,25Gbps
   tributary slot, only the H-LSP on if1 can be used to reach node E.
   For further details please see section 4.1 of the [OTN-INFO].









Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


                            ODU0-LSP
           ..........................................................+
           |                                                         |
           |                                     ODU2-H-LSP          |
           |                         +-------------------------------+
           |                         |                               |
        +--+--+      +-----+      +-----+ if1     +-----+         +-----+
        |     | OTU3 |     | OTU3 |     |---------|     |---------|     |
        |  A  +------+  B  +------+  C  | if2     |  D  |         |  E  |
        |     |      |     |      |     |---------|     |---------|     |
        +-----+      +-----+      +-----+         +-----+         +-----+

         ... Service LSP
         --- H-LSP


    Figure 11: Example - Service LSP and H-LSP terminating on the same
                                   node

5.3.  Example of ODUflex advertisement

   In this example the advertisement of an ODUflex->ODU3 hierarchy is
   shown.  In case of ODUflex advertisement the MAX LSP bandwidth needs
   to be advertised and in some cases also information about the
   Unreserved bandwidth could be useful.  The amount of Unreserved
   bandwidth does not give a clear indication of how many ODUflex LSP
   can be set up either at the MAX LSP Bandwidth or at different rates,
   as it gives no information about the spatial allocation of the free
   TSs.

   An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth could be useful
   during the path computation process, as shown in the following
   example.  Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) with MAX LSP
   Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each.  In case 50Gbps of 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 can be
   restored along Link B and it is probable (but not sure) that two of
   them can be restored along Link A.

   In the case of ODUflex advertisement the Type 2 Bandwidth TLV is
   used.










Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   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 = 2 (Unres/MAX-var)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S. type=ODUflex|  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |   Priority    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU3 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 1              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 2              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 4              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 5              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 6              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 7              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 0              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 1              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 2              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 3              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 4              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 5              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 6              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MAX LSP  Bandwidth at priority 7              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


               Figure 12: Example 3 - ODUflex advertisement







Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


5.4.  Example of single stage muxing

   Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link supporting single stage
   muxing of ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 and ODUflex, the supported hierarchy can
   be summarized in a tree as in the following figure.  For sake of
   simplicity we assume that also in this case only priorities 0 and 3
   are supported.


          ODU1 ODU2  ODU3 ODUflex
             \   \    /   /
              \   \  /   /
               \   \/   /
                  ODU4


   and the related SCSIs as follows:


































Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU4  |  #stages= 0   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1     |    Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU1  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU4  |                  Padding                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU1 at Prio 0 =40    |    Unres ODU1 at Prio 3 =40   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU4  |                  Padding                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =10    |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =10   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU3  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU4  |                  Padding                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =2     |    Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =2    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type = 2 (Unres/MAX-var)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S. type=ODUflex|  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


                Figure 13: Example 4 - Single stage muxing

5.5.  Example of multi stage muxing - Unbundled link

   Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link with muxing capabilities as
   shown in the following figure:


          ODU2 ODU0    ODUflex ODU0
             \ /            \ /
              |              |
            ODU3           ODU2
               \            /
                \          /
                 \        /
                  \      /
                    ODU4


   and supported pririties 0 and 3, the advertisement is composed by the
   following Bandwidth TLVs:


   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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU4  |  #stages= 0   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1     |    Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU3  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =2     |    Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =2    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =10    |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =10   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =8     |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =8    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU0  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =64    |    Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =64   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU0  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =80    |    Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =80   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type = 2 (Unres/MAX-var)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S.type=ODUflex |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 =10Gbps            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 =10Gbps            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



        Figure 14: Example 5 - Multi stage muxing - Unbundled link

5.6.  Example of multi stage muxing - Bundled links

   In this example 2 OTU4 component links with the same supported TSG
   and homogeneous muxing hierarchies are considered.  The following
   muxing capabilities trees are supported:



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   Component Link#1      Component Link#2
      ODU2 ODU0             ODU2 ODU0
         \ /                   \ /
          |                     |
         ODU3                  ODU3
          |                     |
         ODU4                  ODU4


   Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement 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 = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU4  |  #stages= 0   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =2     |    Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =2    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU3  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =4     |    Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =4    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =16    |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =16   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU0  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =128   |    Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =128  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


         Figure 15: Example 6 - Multi stage muxing - Bundled links

5.7.  Example of component links with non homogeneous hierarchies

   In this example 2 OTU4 component links with the same supported TSG
   and non homogeneous muxing hierarchies are considered.  The following
   muxing capabilities trees are supported:


   Component Link#1      Component Link#2
      ODU2 ODU0             ODU1 ODU0
         \ /                   \ /
          |                     |
         ODU3                  ODU2
          |                     |
         ODU4                  ODU4


   Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement uses
   two different ISCDs, one for each hierarchy.  In the following
   figure, the SCSI of each ISCD is shown:


   SCSI of ISCD 1 - Component Link#1

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU4  |  #stages= 0   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1     |    Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU3  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =2     |    Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =2    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =8     |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =8    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU0  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU3  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =64    |    Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =64   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   SCSI of ISCD 2 - Component Link#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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU4  |  #stages= 0   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1     |    Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU2  |  #stages= 1   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Stage#1=ODU4 |                   Padding                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =10    |    Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =10   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU1  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU1 at Prio 0 =40    |    Unres ODU1 at Prio 3 =40   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sig type=ODU0  |  #stages= 2   |T|S| TSG | Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Stage#1=ODU2  | Stage#2=ODU4  |             Padding           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =80    |    Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =80   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


        Figure 16: Example 7 - Multi stage muxing - Non homogeneous
                                hierarchies


6.  Compatibility

   All implementations of this document MAY support also advertisement
   as defined in [RFC4328].  When nodes support both advertisement
   methods, implementations MUST support the configuration of which
   advertisement method is followed.  The choice of which is used is
   based on policy and is out of scope of the document.  This enables
   nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes and
   compute paths using only the appropriate nodes.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2.  As
   Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
   extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
   Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
   transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network.  [RFC3630] suggests
   mechanisms such as [RFC2154] to protect the transmission of this
   information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
   and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.


8.  IANA Considerations

   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment of a
   new Switching Capability value for the existing ISCD located at http:
   //www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/
   ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.xml:


           15     Interface Switching Capability Descriptor      [RFC4203]

           Switching capability     Description                Reference
           ----------------------  --------------------------  ----------
           101 (suggested)          OTN-TDM capable (OTN-TDM)  [This.I-D]

            This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the ISCD TLV:

       Value  Sub-TLV
       -----  -------------------------------------------------
       1      Unreserved Bandwidth for fixed containers
       2      Unreserved/MAX LSP bandwidth for flexible containers




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


9.  Contributors

      Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies

      Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com



      Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson

      Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com



      Marco Corsi

      EMail: corsi.marco@gmail.com



      Eve Varma, Alcatel-Lucent

      EMail: eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com



      Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs

      EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com



      Lyndon Ong, Ciena

      EMail: lyong@ciena.com



      Ashok Kunjidhapatham

      akunjidhapatham@infinera.com



      Snigdho Bardalai

      sbardalai@infinera.com




Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012




      Steve Balls

      Steve.Balls@metaswitch.com



      Jonathan Hardwick

      Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com



      Xihua Fu

      fu.xihua@zte.com.cn



      Cyril Margaria

      cyril.margaria@nsn.com

      Malcolm Betts

      Malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn




10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Fred Gruman and Lou Berger for the
   precious comments and suggestions.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [OTN-FWK]  F.Zhang, D.Li, H.Li, S.Belotti, D.Ceccarelli, "Framework
              for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport
              networks, work in progress
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-05", September 2011.

   [OTN-INFO]
              S.Belotti, P.Grandi, D.Ceccarelli, D.Caviglia, F.Zhang,



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


              D.Li, "Information model for G.709 Optical Transport
              Networks (OTN), work in progress
              draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-02", October 2011.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2154]  Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
              Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2370]  Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
              July 1998.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              September 2003.

   [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4202]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
              of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
              RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC5250]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [RFC6001]  Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
              D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
              Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
              MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.

11.2.  Informative References

   [G.709]    ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
              (OTN)", G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1),
              February 2001.

   [G.709-v3]



Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


              ITU-T, "Draft revised G.709, version 3", consented
              by ITU-T on Oct 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Daniele Ceccarelli (editor)
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China  Bantian, Longgang District
   Phone: +86-755-28972912

   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com


   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China  Bantian, Longgang District
   Phone: +86-755-28973237

   Email: danli@huawei.com











Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support        August 2012


   Sergio Belotti
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Via Trento, 30
   Vimercate
   Italy

   Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com


   Pietro Vittorio Grandi
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Via Trento, 30
   Vimercate
   Italy

   Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.com


   Rajan Rao
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089
   USA

   Email: rrao@infinera.com


   Khuzema Pithewan
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089
   USA

   Email: kpithewan@infinera.com


   John E Drake
   Juniper


   Email: jdrake@juniper.net










Ceccarelli, et al.      Expires February 28, 2013              [Page 32]


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