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

Versions: (draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 08 09 10 11 12 07 RFC 7139

Network Working Group                                   Fatai Zhang, Ed.
Internet Draft                                                    Huawei
Updates: 4328                                              Guoying Zhang
Category: Standards Track                                           CATR
                                                          Sergio Belotti
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                           D. Ceccarelli
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        Khuzema Pithewan
                                                                Infinera
Expires: August 21, 2013                               February 21, 2013


      Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
  Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control


              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.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 August 21, 2013.



Abstract

   ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] has introduced new Optical
   channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex)



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 1]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   and enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility.

   This document updates RFC4328 to provide the extensions to the
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
   control the evolving OTN addressing ODUk multiplexing and new
   features including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex.



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 .................................................. 3
   2. Terminology ................................................... 3
   3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 3
   4. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 4
   5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 6
      5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters ................. 8
      5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................ 10
      5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters .... 10
   6. Generalized Label ............................................ 11
      6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label ................ 11
      6.2. Procedures .............................................. 13
         6.2.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 15
      6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 16
      6.4. Examples ................................................ 16
   7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) ............... 18
   8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations........... 19
   9. Security Considerations ...................................... 20
   10. IANA Considerations.......................................... 20
   11. References .................................................. 22
      11.1. Normative References ................................... 22
      11.2. Informative References ................................. 22
   12. Contributors ................................................ 23
   13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 24
   14. Acknowledgment .............................................. 26






Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 2]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


1. Introduction

   With the evolution and deployment of OTN technology, it is necessary
   that appropriate enhanced control technology support be provided for
   [G709-2012].

   [OTN-FWK] provides a framework to allow the development of protocol
   extensions to support GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
   control of OTN as specified in [G709-2012]. Based on this framework,
   [OTN-INFO] evaluates the information needed by the routing and
   signaling process in OTNs to support GMPLS control of OTN.

   [RFC4328] describes the control technology details that are specific
   to the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. This document
   updates [RFC4328] to provide Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
   Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions to support of control for [G709-
   2012].



2. 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].



3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview

   New features for the evolving OTN, for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4
   and ODUflex containers are specified in [G709-2012]. The
   corresponding new signal types are summarized below:

      -  Optical Channel Transport Unit (OTUk):
         . OTU4

      -  Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUk):
         . ODU0
         . ODU2e
         . ODU4
         . ODUflex

   A new Tributary Slot Granularity (TS Granularity, TSG) (i.e., 1.25
   Gbps) is also described in [G709-2012]. Thus, there are now two TS
   granularities for the foundation OTN ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 containers.



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 3]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   The TS granularity at 2.5 Gbps is used on legacy interfaces while the
   new 1.25 Gbps is used on the new interfaces.

   In addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3,
   4), the evolving OTN [G.709-V3] encompasses the multiplexing of ODUj
   (j = 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, flex) into an ODUk (k > j), as described in
   Section 3.1.2 of [OTN-FWK].

   Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) of Optical channel Payload Unit-k (OPUk)
   (OPUk-Xv, k = 1/2/3, X = 1...256) is also supported by [G709-2012].
   Note that VCAT of OPU0 / OPU2e / OPU4 / OPUflex is not supported per
   [G709-2012].

   [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
   for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. However, [RFC4328]
   needs to be updated because it does not provide the means to signal
   all the new signal types and related mapping and multiplexing
   functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-
   Multiframe Structure Identifier (MSI) mode which assumes that the
   Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit
   direction and not checked in the receive direction.

   This document extends the G.709 Traffic Parameters described in
   [RFC4328] and presents a new flexible and scalable OTN label format.
   Additionally, procedures about Tributary Port Number assignment
   through control plane are also provided in this document.



4. Generalized Label Request

   The Generalized Label Request, as described in [RFC3471], carries the
   Label Switched Path (LSP) Encoding Type, the Switching Type and the
   Generalized Protocol Identifier (G-PID).

   [RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new
   code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital
   Path) and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in
   order to accommodate the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.

   This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is
   introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-2012] in
   order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described
   in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (OTN-TDM Switching Type) is
   defined in [OTN-OSPF].

   This document also updates the G-PID values defined in [RFC4328]:


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 4]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   Value    G-PID Type
   -----    ----------
   47       ODU-2.5G: Transport of Digital Paths (e.g., at 2.5, 10 and
                      40 Gbps) via 2.5Gbps TSG

   49       CBRa:     Asynchronous Constant Bit Rate (CBR) (e.g.,
                      mapping of CBR2G5, CBR10G and CBR40G)

   50       CBRb:     Bit synchronous Constant Bit Rate (e.g., mapping
                      of CBR2G5, CBR10G, CBR40G, CBR10G3 and supra-
                      2.488 CBR Gbit/s signal (carried by OPUflex))

   32       ATM:      Mapping of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) cell
                      stream (e.g., at 1.25, 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps)

   51       BSOT:     Non-specific client Bit Stream with Octet Timing
                      (e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 Gbps
                      Bit Stream)

   52       BSNT:     Non-specific client Bit Stream without Octet
                      Timing (e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and
                      100 Gbps Bit Stream)

   Note: Values 32, 47, 49 and 50 include mapping of Synchronous Digital
   Hierarchy (SDH).

   In the case of ODU multiplexing, the Lower Order ODU (LO ODU) (i.e.,
   the client signal) may be multiplexed into Higher Order ODU (HO ODU)
   via 1.25G TSG, 2.5G TSG or any one of them (i.e., TSG
   Auto_Negotiation is enabled). Since the G-PID type "ODUk" defined in
   [RFC4328] is only used for 2.5Gbps TSG, two new G-PID types are
   defined as follows:

   - ODU-1.25G:  Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100
                 Gbps via 1.25Gbps TSG

   - ODU-any:    Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100
                 Gbps via 1.25 or 2.5Gbps TSG (i.e., the fallback
                 procedure is enabled and the default value of 1.25Gbps
                 TSG can be fallen back to 2.5Gbps if needed)

   In addition, some other new G-PID types are defined to support other
   new client signals described in [G709-2012]:

   - CBRc:       Mapping of constant bit-rate signals with justification
                 into OPUk (k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) via Generic Mapping
                 Procedure (GMP) (i.e., mapping of sub-1.238, supra-


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 5]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


                 1.238 to sub-2.488, close-to 9.995, close-to 40.149
                 and close-to 104.134 Gbit/s CBR client signal)

   - 1000BASE-X: Mapping of a 1000BASE-X signal via timing transparent
                 transcoding into OPU0

   - FC-1200:    Mapping of a FC-1200 signal via timing transparent
                 transcoding into OPU2e

   The following table summarizes the new G-PID values with respect to
   the LSP Encoding Type:

      Value       G-PID Type             LSP Encoding Type
      -----       ----------             -----------------
      59(TBA)     G.709 ODU-1.25G        G.709 ODUk
      60(TBA)     G.709 ODU-any          G.709 ODUk
      61(TBA)     CBRc                   G.709 ODUk
      62(TBA)     1000BASE-X             G.709 ODUk (k=0)
      63(TBA)     FC-1200                G.709 ODUk (k=2e)

   Note: Values 59 and 60 include mapping of SDH.



5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709

   The Traffic Parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried
   in the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The objects have
   the following class and type:

      -  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (TBA)
      -  OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (TBA)

   The format of Traffic Parameters in these two objects is defined 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Signal Type  |    Reserved   |           Tolerance           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Bit_Rate                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Signal Type: 8 bits


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 6]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.1, with the following
      additional values:

       Value    Type
       -----    ----
       4        ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps)
       9        OCh at 100 Gbps
       10       ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)
       11       ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 and GE LAN)
       12~19    Reserved (for future use)
       20       ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
       21       ODUflex(Generic Framing Procedure-Framed (GFP-F)),
                resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
       22       ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
       23~255   Reserved (for future use)

   NVC: 16 bits

      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.3.

   Multiplier (MT): 16 bits

      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.4.

   Bit_Rate: 32 bits

      In case of ODUflex including ODUflex(CBR) and ODUflex(GFP) signal
      types, this field indicates the nominal bit rate of ODUflex
      expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-
      precision floating-point number (referring to [RFC4506] and
      [IEEE]). For other signal types, this field is not necessary and
      MUST be set to 0.

   Tolerance: 16 bits

      In case of ODUflex(CBR) signal type, this field indicates the bit
      rate tolerance (part per million, ppm) of the ODUflex(CBR)
      encoded as an unsigned integer. The ODUflex(CBR) bit rate
      tolerance is always specified as 100 ppm per Table 7-2 of [G709-
      2012], so it MUST be set to 100ppm. For other signal types, this
      field is not necessary and MUST be set to 0.






Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 7]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters

   In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in
   the ODUflex Traffic Parameters MUST be used to determine the actual
   bandwidth of ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., Bit_Rate * (1 +/- Tolerance)).
   Therefore the total number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link
   can be reserved correctly. Here:

         N = Ceiling of

   ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance)
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
       ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)

   In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of
   the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate
   after applying the 239/238 factor (according to Clause 7.3, Table 7-2
   of [G709-2012]) and the transcoding factor T (if needed) on the CBR
   client. According to clauses 17.7.3, 17.7.4 and 17.7.5 of [G709-
   2012]:

   ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate = CBR client bit rate * (239/238) / T

   The ODTUk.ts (Optical channel Data Tributary Unit k with ts tributary
   slots) nominal bit rate is the nominal bit rate of the tributary slot
   of ODUk, as shown in Table 1 (referring to Table 7-7 of [G709-2012]).

              Table 1 - Actual TS bit rate of ODUk (in Kbps)

      ODUk.ts       Minimum          Nominal          Maximum
      -----------------------------------------------------------
      ODU2.ts    1,249,384.632    1,249,409.620     1,249,434.608
      ODU3.ts    1,254,678.635    1,254,703.729     1,254,728.823
      ODU4.ts    1,301,683.217    1,301,709.251     1,301,735.285

   Note that:

      Minimum bit rate of ODUTk.ts =
         ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)

      Maximum bit rate of ODTUk.ts =
         ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 + HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)

      Where: HO OPUk bit rate tolerance = 20ppm

   Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR)
   nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 8]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex
   service.

   Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots
   are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be
   reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) MAY not be the same on different HO
   ODUk links.

   An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR)
   Traffic Parameters.

   As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service
   requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C.
   In other words, the ODUflex Traffic Parameters indicate that Signal
   Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is
   100ppm.

     +-----+             +---------+             +-----+
     |     +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+     |
     |     +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+     |
     |     +=============+/| flex+-+=============+     |
     |     +-------------+ |     |\+=============+     |
     |     +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+     |
     |     |             |         |             |     |
     |     |   .......   |         |   .......   |     |
     |  A  +-------------+    B    +-------------+  C  |
     +-----+   HO ODU4   +---------+   HO ODU2   +-----+

       =========: TS occupied by ODUflex
       ---------: free TS

           Figure 1 - Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters

   -  On the HO ODU4 link between node A and B:

      The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex(CBR) equals 2.5Gbps * (1 +
      100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU4
      equals 1,301,683.217 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots
      N1 to be reserved on this link is:

      N1 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,301,683.217 Kbps) = 2

   -  On the HO ODU2 link between node B and C:

      The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 +
      100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU2



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 9]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


      equals 1,249,384.632 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots
      N2 to be reserved on this link is:

      N2 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,249,384.632 Kbps) = 3

5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters

   [G709-2012] recommends that the ODUflex(GFP) will fill an integral
   number of tributary slots of the smallest HO ODUk path over which the
   ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2.

         Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance

              ODU type             | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance
   --------------------------------+------------------+-----------
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8   |   n * ODU2.ts    | +/-100 ppm
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32  |   n * ODU3.ts    | +/-100 ppm
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 |   n * ODU4.ts    | +/-100 ppm

   According to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST
   equal to one of the 80 values listed below:

       1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts;
       9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts;
       33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts.

   In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the
   ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from
   the Bit_Rate field.

5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters

   There is no Adspec associated with the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC. Either
   the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the Default General
   Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used,
   see [RFC2210].

   For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC
   object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents
   of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path
   message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a
   "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated.

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself, and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established, can support the
   requested Signal Type, NVC, Tolerance and Bit_Rate values. If the
   requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 10]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service
   unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).

   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node
   MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad
   Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).

   Further, if the Signal Type is not ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3, and the NVC
   field is not 0, the node MUST generate a PathErr message with a
   "Traffic Control Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).



6. Generalized Label

   This section defines the format of the OTN-TDM Generalized Label.

6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label

   The following is the Generalized Label format for that MUST be used
   with the OTN-TDM Switching Type:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         TPN           |   Reserved    |        Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                   Bit Map          ......                     ~
   ~              ......                   |     Padding Bits      ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The OTN-TDM Generalized Label is used to indicate how the LO ODUj
   signal is multiplexed into the HO ODUk link. Note that the LO OUDj
   signal type is indicated by Traffic Parameters, while the type of HO
   ODUk link is identified by the selected interface carried in the
   IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object.

   TPN (12 bits): indicates the TPN for the assigned Tributary Slot(s).

      -  In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, only the
         lower 6 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of
         TPN MUST be set to 0.

      -  In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU4, only the lower 7
         bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of TPN
         MUST be set to 0.



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 11]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


      -  In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed
         and this field MUST be set to 0.

   Per [G709-2012], The TPN is used to allow for correct demultiplexing
   in the data plane. When an LO ODUj is multiplexed into HO ODUk
   occupying one or more TSs, a new TPN value is configured at the two
   ends of the HO ODUk link and is put into the related MSI byte(s) in
   the OPUk overhead at the (traffic) ingress end of the link, so that
   the other end of the link can learn which TS(s) is/are used by the LO
   ODUj in the data plane.

   According to [G709-2012], the TPN field MUST be set as according to
   the following tables:

          Table 3 - TPN Assignment Rules (2.5Gbps TS granularity)
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN |          TPN Assignment Rules                |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   | ODU2  | ODU1  |1~4 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1                 |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       | ODU1  |1~16|Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1                 |
   | ODU3  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       | ODU2  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs    |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+


          Table 4 - TPN Assignment Rules (1.25Gbps TS granularity)
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN |          TPN Assignment Rules                |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   | ODU1  | ODU0  |1~2 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU0                 |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       | ODU1  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs    |
   | ODU2  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       |ODU0 & |1~8 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and      |
   |       |ODUflex|    |ODUflexes' TPNs                               |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       | ODU1  |1~16|Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs    |
   |       +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       | ODU2  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs    |
   | ODU3  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   |       |ODU0 & |    |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and      |
   |       |ODU2e &|1~32|ODU2es and ODUflexes' TPNs                    |
   |       |ODUflex|    |                                              |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
   | ODU4  |Any ODU|1~80|Flexible, != ANY other existing LO ODUs' TPNs |
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 12]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN MAY not be
   corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-2012].

   Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map field,
   i.e., the total number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The valid values
   for this field are 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 80.

   In case of an ODUk mapped into OTUk, there is no need to indicate
   which tributary slots will be used, so the length field MUST be set
   to 0.

   Bit Map (variable): indicates which tributary slots in HO ODUk that
   the LO ODUj will be multiplexed into. The sequence of the Bit Map is
   consistent with the sequence of the tributary slots in HO ODUk. Each
   bit in the bit map represents the corresponding tributary slot in HO
   ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot
   will be used by LO ODUj or not.

   Padding bits are added after the Bit Map to make the whole label a
   multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padding bits MUST be set to 0
   and MUST be ignored.

6.2. Procedures

   The ingress node MUST generate a Path message and specify the OTN-TDM
   Switching Type and corresponding G-PID in the Generalized Label
   Request object, which MUST be processed as defined in [RFC3473].

   The ingress node of an LSP MAY include label ERO (Explicit Route
   Object) to indicate the label in each hops along the path. Note that
   the TPN in the label ERO subobject MAY not be assigned by the ingress
   node. In this case, the node MUST assign a valid TPN value and then
   put this value into TPN field of the label object when receiving a
   Path message.

   In order to create bidirectional LSP, the ingress node and upstream
   node MUST generate an Upstream Label on the out outgoing interface to
   indicate the reserved TSs of ODUk and the assigned TPN value in the
   upstream direction. This Upstream Label is sent to the downstream
   node via Path massage for upstream resource reservation.

   The ingress node or upstream node MAY generate Label Set to indicate
   which labels on the outgoing interface in the downstream direction
   are acceptable. The downstream node will restrict its choice of
   labels, i.e., TS resource and TPN value, to one which is in the Label
   Set.



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 13]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   The ingress node or upstream node MAY also generate Suggested Label
   to indicate the preference of TS resource and TPN value on the
   outgoing interface in the downstream direction. The downstream node
   is not REQUIRED to use the Suggested Label and MAY use another label
   based on local decision and send it to the upstream node, as
   described in [RFC3473].

   When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL
   object with an OTN-TDM label, it MUST firstly identify which ODU
   signal type is multiplexed or mapped into which ODU signal type
   accordingly to the Traffic Parameters and the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object
   in the received message.

   -  In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST retrieve the
      reserved tributary slots in the ODUk by its downstream neighbor
      node according to the position of the bits that are set to 1 in
      the Bit Map field. The node determines the TS type (according to
      the total TS number of the ODUk, or pre-configured TS type), so
      that the node can multiplex the ODUj into the ODUk based on the TS
      type. The node MUST also retrieve the TPN value assigned by its
      downstream neighbor node from the label, and fill the TPN into the
      related MSI byte(s) in the OPUk overhead in the data plane, so
      that the downstream neighbor node can check whether the TPN
      received from the data plane is consistent with the ExMSI and
      determine whether there is any mismatch defect. Note that the
      Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate the TS
      type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps)
      since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. In
      some cases when there is no Link Management Protocol (LMP) or
      routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG,
      the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the
      label format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the
      length filed will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is
      2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively.

   -  In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the size of Bit Map field MUST be
      0 and no additional procedure is needed.

   When a downstream node or egress node receives a Path message
   containing Generalized Label Request object for setting up an ODUj
   LSP from its upstream neighbor node, the node MUST generate an OTN-
   TDM label according to the signal type of the requested LSP and the
   free resources (i.e., free tributary slots of ODUk) that will be
   reserved for the LSP, and send the label to its upstream neighbor
   node.




Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 14]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   -  In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly
      determine the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal
      type and the tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to
      1 in the Bit Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary
      slots. The node MUST also assign a valid TPN, which MUST NOT
      collide with other TPN value used by existing LO ODU connections
      in the selected HO ODU link, and configure the Expected MSI
      (ExMSI) using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN MUST be filled into
      the label.

   -  In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit
      Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST NOT be included, so
      Length field MUST be set to 0 as well.

6.2.1. Notification on Label Error

   When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL
   object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify if the label is
   acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node MUST generate a
   ResvErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value"
   indication.  Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message MAY include
   an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception of label
   semantics, downstream node processing a received ResvErr messages and
   of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document.

   Similarly, when a downstream node receives a Path message containing
   an UPSTREAM_LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify
   if the label is acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node
   MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable
   label value" indication. Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message
   MAY include an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object.  With the exception of
   label semantics, downstream node processing received PathErr messages
   and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document.

   A received label SHALL be considered unacceptable when one of the
   following cases occurs:

   -  The received label doesn't conform to local policy;

   -  Invalid value in the length field;

   -  The selected link only supports 2.5Gbps TS granularity while the
      Length field in the label along with ODUk signal type indicates
      the 1.25Gbps TS granularity;

   -  The label includes an invalid TPN value that breaks the TPN
      assignment rules;


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 15]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   -  The indicated resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map
      field) are inconsistent with the Traffic Parameters.

6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication

   Per [RFC6344], the Virtual Concatenation Groups (VCGs) can be created
   using Co-Signaled style or Multiple LSPs style.

   In case of Co-Signaled style, the explicit ordered list of all labels
   MUST reflect the order of VCG members, which is similar to [RFC4328].
   In case of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (NVC > 1), the
   first label MUST indicate the components of the first virtually
   concatenated signal; the second label MUST indicate the components of
   the second virtually concatenated signal; and so on. In case of
   multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT >
   1), the first label MUST indicate the components of the first
   multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; the second label MUST
   indicate components of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated
   signal; and so on.

   Support for Virtual Concatenation of ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 signal
   types, as defined by [RFC6344], is not modified by this document.
   Virtual Concatenation of other signal types is not supported by
   [G709-2012].

   Multiplier (MT) usage is as defined in [RFC6344] and [RFC4328].

6.4. Examples

   The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label
   format described in Section 6.1 of this document.

   (1) ODUk into OTUk mapping:

   In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label
   indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the
   corresponding OTUk. The following example label indicates an ODU1
   mapped into OTU1.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       TPN = 0         |   Reserved    |     Length = 0        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   (2) ODUj into ODUk multiplexing:



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 16]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   In such conditions, this label indicates that an ODUj is multiplexed
   into several tributary slots of OPUk and then mapped into OTUk. Some
   instances are shown as follow:

   -  ODU0 into ODU2 Multiplexing:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       TPN = 2         |   Reserved    |     Length = 8        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0|             Padding Bits (0)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This above label indicates an ODU0 multiplexed into the second
   tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the
   type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 2.

   -  ODU1 into ODU2 Multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       TPN = 1         |   Reserved    |     Length = 8        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0|             Padding Bits (0)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This above label indicates an ODU1 multiplexed into the 2nd and the
   4th tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the
   type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 1.

   -  ODU2 into ODU3 Multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       TPN = 1         |   Reserved    |     Length = 16       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|       Padding Bits (0)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This above label indicates an ODU2 multiplexed into the 2nd, 3rd, 5th
   and 7th tributary slot of ODU3, wherein there are 16 TS in ODU3
   (i.e., the type of the tributary slot is 2.5Gbps), and the TPN value
   is 1.



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 17]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP)

   [G7044] describes the procedure of ODUflex (GFP) hitless resizing
   using Link Connection Resize (LCR) and Bandwidth Resize (BWR)
   protocols in OTN data plane.

   For the control plane, signaling messages are REQUIRED to initiate
   the adjustment procedure. Section 2.5 and Section 4.6.4 of [RFC3209]
   describe how the Shared Explicit (SE) style is used in Traffic
   Engineering (TE) network for bandwidth increasing and decreasing,
   which is still applicable for triggering the ODUflex (GFP) adjustment
   procedure in data plane.

   Note that the SE style MUST be used at the beginning when creating a
   resizable ODUflex connection (Signal Type = 21). Otherwise an error
   with Error Code "Conflicting reservation style" MUST be generated
   when performing bandwidth adjustment.

   -  Bandwidth increasing

       For the ingress node, in order to increase the bandwidth of an
       ODUflex (GFP) connection, a Path message with SE style (keeping
       Tunnel ID unchanged and assigning a new LSP ID) MUST be sent
       along the path.

       The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful
       completion of LCR protocols on every hop after Resv message is
       processed. On success of BWR, the ingress node SHOULD send a
       PathTear message to delete the old control state (i.e., the
       control state of the ODUflex (GFP) before resizing) on the
       control plane.

       A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares
       the old Traffic Parameters (stored locally) with the new one
       carried in the Path message, to determine the number of TS to be
       added. After choosing and reserving new free TS, the downstream
       node MUST send back a Resv message carrying both the old and new
       LABEL Objects in the SE flow descriptor.

       An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow
       descriptor MUST determine which TS are added and trigger the LCR
       protocol between itself and its downstream neighbor node.

   -  Bandwidth decreasing

       For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style SHOULD also be
       sent for ODUflex bandwidth decreasing.


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 18]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


       The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful
       completion of LCR handshake on every hop after Resv message is
       processed. On success of BWR, the second step of LCR, i.e., link
       connection decrease procedure will be started on every hop of the
       connection. After completion of bandwidth decreasing, the ingress
       node SHOULD send a ResvErr message to tear down the old control
       state.

       A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares
       the old Traffic Parameters with the new one carried in the Path
       message to determine the number of TS to be decreased. After
       choosing TSs to be decreased, the downstream node MUST send back
       a Resv message carrying both the old and new LABEL Objects in the
       SE flow descriptor.

       An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow
       descriptor MUST determine which TS are decreased and trigger the
       first step of LCR protocol (i.e., LCR handshake) between itself
       and its downstream neighbor node.



8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations

   As described in [OTN-FWK], since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in
   the network for the nodes that support the 2001 revision of the G.709
   specification, control plane backward compatibility SHOULD be taken
   into consideration. More specifically:

   o  Nodes supporting this document SHOULD support [OTN-OSPF].

   o  Nodes supporting this document MAY support [RFC4328] signaling.

   o  A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and
      this document) is not REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both
      procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator.

   o  Ingress nodes that support both sets of procedures MAY select
      which set of procedures to follow based on routing information or
      local policy.

   o  Per [RFC3473], nodes that do not support this document will
      generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Switching
      Type" indication.





Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 19]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


9. Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations to the
   existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473] and
   [RFC4328], further details of the specific security measures are
   provided. Additionally, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security
   vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control
   plane.



10. IANA Considerations

   Three RSVP C-Types are defined for OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters and
   OTN-TDM Generalized Label in this document:
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

   -  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects:

      o  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (see
         Section 5)

      o  OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (see Section 5)

   -  OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object:

      o  OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: Class = 16, C-Type = 2 (see
         Section 6.1)

   IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters). "Generalized
   PIDs (G-PID)" subregistry is included in this registry, which will be
   extended and updated by this document as below:

   -  Generalized PID (G-PID):

       Name: G-PID

       Format: 16-bit number

       Values:

       [0..31, 36..46] defined in [RFC3471]
       [32]            defined in [RFC3471] and updated by Section 4
       [33..35]        defined in [RFC3471] and updated by [RFC4328]
       [47, 49..52]    defined in [RFC4328] and updated by Section 4


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 20]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


       [48, 53..58]    defined in [RFC4328]
       [59..63]        defined in Section 4 of this document

       Allocation Policy (as defined in [RFC4328]):

       [0..31743]      Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
                       Action.
       [31744..32767]  Assigned temporarily for Experimental Usage
       [32768..65535]  Not assigned. Before any assignments can be
                       made in this range, there MUST be a Standards
                       Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations
                       that covers the range being assigned.

   "Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" will be defined by this
   document as below:

      Value    Signal Type                           Reference
      -----    -----------                           ---------
      0        Not significant                       [RFC4328]
      1        ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps)                 [RFC4328]
      2        ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps)                  [RFC4328]
      3        ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps)                  [RFC4328]
      4        ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps)                 [this document]
      5        Reserved (for future use)             [RFC4328]
      6        Och at 2.5 Gbps                       [RFC4328]
      7        OCh at 10 Gbps                        [RFC4328]
      8        OCh at 40 Gbps                        [RFC4328]
      9        OCh at 100 Gbps                       [this document]
      10       ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)                [this document]
      11       ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200        [this document]
               and GE LAN)
      12~19    Reserved (for future use)             [this document]
      20       ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)      [this document]
      21       ODUflex(GFP-F), resizable             [this document]
               (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
      22       ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable         [this document]
               (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
      23~255   Reserved (for future use)             [this document]







Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 21]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


11. References

11.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
             Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
             Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
             Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
             3471, January 2003.

   [RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
             Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006.

   [RFC6344] G. Bernstein et al, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT)
             and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with
             Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
             RFC6344, August 2011.

11.2. Informative References

   [OTN-FWK] Fatai Zhang et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
             G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress: draft-
             ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework, November 2012.

   [OTN-INFO] S. Belotti et al, "Information model for G.709 Optical
             Transport Networks (OTN)", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-
             ccamp-otn-g709-info-model, January 2013.

   [OTN-OSPF] D. Ceccarelli et al, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
             OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709



Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 22]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


             OTN Networks", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
             ospf-g709v3, January 2013.

   [G709-2012] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network
             (OTN)", G.709/Y.1331 Recommendation, February 2012.

   [G7044]   ITU-T, "Hitless adjustment of ODUflex", G.7044/Y.1347,
             October 2011.

   [RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
             Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006.

   [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
             Networks", RFC5920, July 2010.

   [IEEE]    "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
             ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and
             Electronics Engineers, August 1985.


12. Contributors

   Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs
   Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com


   Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent
   Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com


   Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies
   Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com


   Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson
   Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com


   Lyndon Ong, Ciena
   Email: lyong@ciena.com


   Biao Lu, infinera
   Email: blu@infinera.com


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 23]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


13. Authors' Addresses

   Fatai Zhang (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com


   Guoying Zhang
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
   Phone: +86-10-68094272
   Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn


   Sergio Belotti
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Optics CTO
   Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
   +39 039 6863033
   Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it


   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


   Khuzema Pithewan
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089,  USA
   Email: kpithewan@infinera.com





Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 24]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   Yi Lin
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972914
   Email: yi.lin@huawei.com


   Yunbin Xu
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
   Phone: +86-10-68094134
   Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn


   Pietro Grandi
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Optics CTO
   Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
   +39 039 6864930
   Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it


   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


   Rajan Rao
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089
   USA
   Email: rrao@infinera.com





Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 25]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   John E Drake
   Juniper
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Igor Bryskin
   Adva Optical
   EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com



14. Acknowledgment

   The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for
   their useful comments to the document.



Intellectual Property

   The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.

   Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
   Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
   the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
   permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
   users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
   repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
   address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 26]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.


Disclaimer of Validity

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.



Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November


Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 27]


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013


   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.







































Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 28]


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