[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 3946

   CCAMP Working Group                       Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
   Internet Draft                        Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
   Expiration Date: November 2001             Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
                                                   Lou Berger (Movaz)
                                               Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
                                                 Angela Chiu (Celion)
                                                 John Drake (Calient)
                                                 Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
                                            Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
                                               Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
                                              Juergen Heiles(Siemens)
                                               Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
                                           Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)
                                           Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
                                                  Fong Liaw (Zaffire)
                                                 Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
                                             Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
                                      Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
                                       Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
                                           Mike Raftelis (White Rock)
                                           Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
                                              Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
                                              Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
                                              Vishal Sharma (Jasmine)
                                               George Swallow (Cisco)
                                                 Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
                                                   Eve Varma (Lucent)
                                             Maarten Vissers (Lucent)
                                                Yangguang Xu (Lucent)

                                         Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor

                                                           May 2001


               GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control


                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  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."


E. Mannie Editor                                                     1

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This document is a companion to the Generalized MPLS signaling
   documents, [GMPLS-SIG], [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].  It defines
   the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using
   GMPLS signaling.


1. Introduction

   Generalized MPLS extends MPLS from supporting packet (Packet
   Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching to include
   support of three new classes of interfaces and switching: Time-
   Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and Fiber-Switch
   (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS
   signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and
   switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-
   TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four
   classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in
   [GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to
   SONET/SDH. Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are
   carried in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific
   objects.

   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. SDH and SONET Traffic Parameters

   This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
   The protocol specific formats, for the SDH/SONET-specific RSVP-TE
   objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3
   respectively.

   These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities
   for SONET (ANSI T1.105) and SDH (G.707) such as concatenation and
   transparency. Other documents could enhance this set of
   capabilities in the future. For instance, extensions to G.707 such
   as SDH over PDH, or sub-STM-0 interfaces could be defined.

   The traffic parameters defined hereafter MUST be used when
   SONET/SDH is specified in the LSP Encoding Type field of a
   Generalized Label Request [GMPLS-SIG].





E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    2

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

      The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH is organized 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  |   Resv  | CCT |              NCC              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Transparency (T)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Signal Type (ST): 8 bits

     This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that
     comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied
     successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal
     being actually requested for the LSP. Each transform is
     optional and must be ignored if zero. Transforms must be
     applied strictly in the following order:

      -First, contiguous concatenation (by using the CCT and NCC
        fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal,
        resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal.
      -Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can
        be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary
        Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained
        from the previous phase. This allows requesting the virtual
        concatenation of a contiguously concatenated signal, for
        instance the virtual concatenation of STS-3c's, or any STS-
        Xc's.
      -Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when
        requesting a frame as signal rather than an SPE or VC based
        signal (by using the Transparency field).
      -Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
        optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or
        on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first
        phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from
        the second phase, or on these signals combined with some
        transparency.













E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    3

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   Permitted Signal Type values for SDH are:

           Value  Type
           -----  ----
             1    VC-11
             2    VC-12
             3    VC-2
             4    TUG-2
             5    VC-3
             6    "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" (see comment hereafter)
             7    TUG-3
             8    VC-4
             9    AUG-1
            10    AUG-4
            11    AUG-16
            12    AUG-64
            13    AUG-256
            14    STM-1    (only when requesting transparency)
            15    STM-4    (only when requesting transparency)
            16    STM-16   (only when requesting transparency)
            17    STM-64   (only when requesting transparency)
            18    STM-256  (only when requesting transparency)

     According to the G.707 standard a VC-3 in the TU-3/TUG-3/VC-
     4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in TUG-
     2's, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, a
     VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. In
     some cases, it could be useful to indicate that the destination
     LSR needs to receive a VC-3 via the AU-3 branch in order to be
     able to demultiplex it into TUG-2's. This is achieved by using
     the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type. This information
     can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to switch the
     incoming VC-3 into the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to
     the destination LSR. The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type
     does not imply that the VC-3 must be switched in the AU-3 at
     some other places. The VC-3 signal type indicates that a VC-3
     in any branch is suitable.

     Administrative Unit Group-N's (AUG-N's) are either a homogeneous
     collection of AU-3s or AU-4s. When used as a signal type this
     means that all the VC-3s or VC-4s in the AU-3s or AU-4s that
     comprise the AUG-N are switched together as one unique signal. In
     addition any contiguous concatenation relationships between the
     VC-3s or VC-4s in the AUG-N are preserved and are allowed to
     change over the life of an AUG-N. It is this flexibility in the
     concatenation relationships between the component virtual
     containers that differentiates this signal from a set of VC-3s or
     VC-4s. In addition whether the AUG-N is structured with AU-3s or
     AU-4s does not need to be specified and is allowed to change over
     time. The same reasoning applies to TUG-2 and TUG-3 signal types.





E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    4

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

     Permitted Signal Type values for SONET are:

           Value  Type
           -----  ----
             1    VT1.5
             2    VT2
             3    VT3
             4    VT6
             5    VTG
             6    STS-1 SPE
             7    STS Group-3
             8    STS Group-12
             9    STS Group-48
            10    STS Group-192
            11    STS Group-768
            12    STS-1    (only when requesting transparency)
            13    STS-3    (only when requesting transparency)
            14    STS-12   (only when requesting transparency)
            15    STS-48   (only when requesting transparency)
            16    STS-192  (only when requesting transparency)
            17    STS-768  (only when requesting transparency)

     STS Group-N is a collection of STS-1 SPE signals whose contiguous
     concatenation relationship within the group need not be defined
     and is permitted to change during the life of the STS-Group-N. It
     is this flexibility in the concatenation relationships between the
     component STS-1 SPE's that differentiates this signal from a set
     of STS-1 SPE's. For example an STS Group-48 could at one time
     consist of four STS-12c signals and at another point in times of
     three STS-12c signals and four STS-3c signals. The same reasoning
     applies to the VTG signal type.

   Reserved: 5 bits

     Reserved bits should be set to zero when sent and must be ignored
     when received.

   Contiguous Concatenation Type (CCT): 3 bits

     This field indicates the type of SONET/SDH contiguous
     concatenation to apply on the Elementary Signal. It is set to
     zero to indicate that no contiguous concatenation is requested
     (default value). The values are defined in the following table:

          Bits   Contiguous Concatenation Type
         -----   ----------------------------------
          000     No contiguous concatenation requested
          001     Standard contiguous concatenation
          010     Arbitrary contiguous concatenation
         others   Vendor specific concatenation types





E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    5

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH
     SPE's/VC's that are requested to be contiguously concatenated,
     as specified in the CCT field.

     This field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
     requested (CCT = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
     generated. A CCT value different from 0 must imply a number of
     components greater than 1.

   Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
     requested to be virtually concatenated. These signals can be
     either identical Elementary Signal's SPE's/VC's, or identical
     contiguously concatenated signals. In this last case, it allows
     to request the virtual concatenation of contiguously
     concatenated signals, for instance the virtual concatenation of
     several STS-3c SPE's, or any STS-Xc SPE's (to obtain an STS-Xc-
     Yv SPE).

     This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no
     virtual concatenation is requested.

   Multiplier (MT): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
     requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These
     signals can be either identical Elementary Signal's, or
     identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical
     virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals
     belongs thus to the same LSP.

     The distinction between the components of multiple virtually
     concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that
     are specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must
     describe the first component (set of individual signals
     belonging to the first virtual concatenated signal), the second
     set must describe the second component (set of individual
     signals belonging to the second virtual concatenated signal)
     and so on.

     This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that
     exactly one instance of a signal is being requested. Zero is an
     invalid value.

   Transparency (T): 32 bits

     This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
     transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined
     to provide different types of transparency. Not all
     combinations are necessarily valid.


E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    6

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

     Transparency is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH
     frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the
     Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH
     case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead
     (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer
     fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are
     defined as being part of the LOH.

     Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using
     the following Signal Types (ST's): STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM-
     64, STM-256, STS-1, STS-3, STS-12, STS-48, STS-192, and STS-
     768. At least one transparency type must be specified when
     requesting such a signal type.

     Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these
     overheads must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the
     LSP. An ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these
     overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR
     without any change. From the ingress and egress LSR's point of
     views, these fields must be seen as unmodified.

     Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete
     previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed.
     Note that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete
     previous frame, except the SOH/RSOH.

     This specification neither addresses how this process is
     achieved nor network deployment scenarios. The signaling is
     independent of these consideration (For example, fields could
     be simply unmofified or could be tunneled into unused overhead
     bytes).

     Several transparency types are defined below. Other
     transparency types are for further study.

     The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports
     the requested transparency, it may also be used to setup the
     transparency process to be applied in each intermediate LSR.

     The different transparency flags are the following:

        flag  1 (bit 1) : Section/Regenerator Section layer.
        flag  2 (bit 2) : Line/Multiplex Section layer.
        flag  3 (bit 3) : J0.
        flag  4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3).
        flag  5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12).
        flag  6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156).
        flag  7 (bit 7) : K1/K2.
        flag  8 (bit 8) : E1.
        flag  9 (bit 9) : F1.
        flag 10 (bit 10): E2.

     Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved,
     they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored

E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    7

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

     when received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the
     corresponding transparency is requested.

     Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the
     entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
     pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator
     Section layer transparency all other flags must be ignored.

     Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the
     LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
     pointers cannot be adjusted. Line/Multiplex Section layer
     transparency can be combined only with any of the following
     transparency types: J0, SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3), E1, F1; and all
     other transparency flags must be ignored.

     Note that the extended LOH/MSOH DCC (D13-D156) is only
     applicable to (defined for) STS-768/STM-256.

2.2. RSVP-TE Details

   For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects.  The same format is
   used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The
   contents of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The
   objects have the following class and type:

     For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707:

       SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (TBA)
       SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (TBA)

   There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH 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.













E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    8

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

2.3. CR-LDP Details


   For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV.  The contents of the TLV is
   defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the
   following format:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|          Type             |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     The type field indicates either SONET or SDH:

       For SONET ANSI T1.105 : 0xTBA.
       For SDH ITU-T G.707   : 0xTBA.


3. SDH and SONET Labels

   SDH and SONET each define a multiplexing structure. These two
   structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STM-N or an
   STS-N; and whose leaves are the signals (time-slots) that can be
   transported and switched, i.e. a VC-x or a VT-x. An SDH/SONET
   label will identify the exact position of a particular signal in a
   multiplexing structure. SDH and SONET labels are carried in the
   Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].

   These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to
   create unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET
   multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH
   multiplexing structure, the same format of label is used for SDH
   and SONET. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a label does not identify
   the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicitly
   determined by the link on which the label is used. However, in
   some cases the encoding specified hereafter can make the direct
   distinction between SDH and SONET.

   In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
   labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.

   In case of any type of contiguous concatenation (e.g. standard or
   arbitrary concatenation), only one label appears in the Label
   field. That label is the lowest signal of the contiguously
   concatenated signal. By lowest signal we mean the one having the
   lowest label when compared as integer values, i.e. the first
   component signal of the concatenated signal encountered when
   descending the tree.

   In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all
   labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates a
   component of the virtually concatenated signal. The order of the

E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                    9

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   labels must reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate (not
   the physical order of time-slots). The above representation limits
   virtual concatenation to remain within a single (component) link.

   In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform),
   the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the
   Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually
   concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the first
   virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates
   the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
   representation limits multiplication to remain within a single
   (component) link.

   The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET TDM-LSR link is:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   For SDH, this is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in
   G.707 section 7.3, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. For SONET, the U
   and K fields are not significant and must be set to zero. Only the
   S, L and M fields are significant for SONET and have a similar
   meaning as for SDH.

   Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the
   parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as
   numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the
   multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to
   indicate a non-significant field.

   When a field is not significant in a particular context it MUST be
   set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received.

   When hierarchical SDH/SONET LSPs are used, an LSP with a given
   bandwidth can be used to tunnel lower order LSPs.  The higher
   order SDH/SONET LSP behaves as a virtual link with a given
   bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding
   Adjacency. A lower order SDH/SONET LSP can be established through
   that higher order LSP. Since a label is local to a (virtual) link,
   the highest part of that label is non-significant and is set to
   zero.

   For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be advertised as a forwarding
   adjacency. In that case all labels allocated between the two ends
   of that LSP will have S, U and K set to zero, i.e., non-
   significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the signal
   allocated in that VC-3.

     1. S is the index of a particular STM-1/STS-1 signal. S=1->N
     indicates a specific STM-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N


E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   10

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

     multiplex. For example, S=1 indicates the first STM-1/STS-1, and
     S=N indicates the last STM-1/STS-1 of this multiplex.

     2. U is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET.
     It indicates a specific VC inside a given STM-1. U=1 indicates a
     single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a specific VC-3 inside the
     given STM-1.

     3. K is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET.
     It indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. K=1 indicates that the
     VC-4 is not further subdivided and contains a C-4. K=2->4
     indicates a specific TUG-3 inside the VC-4. K is not significant
     when the STM-1 is divided into VC-3s (easy to read and test).

     4. L indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE.
     It is not significant for an unstructured VC-4. L=1 indicates
     that the TUG-3/VC-3/STS-1 SPE is not further subdivided and
     contains a VC-3/C-3 in SDH or the equivalent in SONET. L=2->8
     indicates a specific TUG-2/VT Group inside the corresponding
     higher order signal.

     5. M indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group. It is not
     significant for an unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE.
     M=1 indicates that the TUG-2/VT Group is not further subdivided
     and contains a VC-2/VT-6. M=2->3 indicates a specific VT-3
     inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be used
     for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 with SDH. M=4->6
     indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 inside the corresponding TUG-
     2/VT Group. M=7->10 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 inside the
     corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that M=0 denotes an
     unstructured VC-4, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (easy for debugging).

      The M encoding is summarized in the following table:

          M    SDH                          SONET
         ----------------------------------------------------------
          0    unstructured VC-4/VC-3  unstructured STS-1 SPE
          1    VC-2                    VT-6
          2    -                       1st VT-3
          3    -                       2nd VT-3
          4    1st VC-12               1st VT-2
          5    2nd VC-12               2nd VT-2
          6    3rd VC-12               3rd VT-2
          7    1st VC-11               1st VT-1.5
          8    2nd VC-11               2nd VT-1.5
          9    3rd VC-11               3rd VT-1.5
          10   4th VC-11               4th VT-1.5

   In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
   lowest label of the contiguously concatenated signal as explained
   before. The higher part of the label indicates where the signal
   starts and the lowest part is not significant. For instance, when
   requesting an STS-48c the label is S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.


E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   11

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   Examples of labels:

   Example 1: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0
   Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth STM-1.

   Example 2: S>0, U=1, K>1, L=1, M=0
   Denotes the unstructured VC-3 of the Kth-1 TUG-3 of the Sth STM-1.

   Example 3: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0
   Denotes the unstructured STM-1/STS-1 SPE of the Sth STM-1/STS-1.

   Example 4: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=1
   Denotes the VT-6 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.

   Example 5: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=9
   Denotes the 3rd VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.


4. Examples of SONET and SDH signals

   As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
   successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency
   transforms can be applied.

   1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of CCT with value 0,
   NVC with value 0 (no concatenation), MT with value 1 and T with
   value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of CCT with value
   0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 7 components), MT
   with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of CCT with
   value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4
   Elementary Signal.

   5. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16 Elementary Signal.

   6. An STM-64 signal with RSOH and MSOH DCC's transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 1 and T with flag 4 and 5 to an STM-64 Elementary
   Signal.

   7. An STM-4c signal (i.e. VC-4-4C with the transport overhead)
   with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the
   application of CCT with value 1, NCC with value 4, NVC with value
   0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-4
   Elementary Signal.

   8. An STM-256c signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 1, NCC with value 256,

E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   12

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
   STM-256 Elementary Signal.

   9. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
   value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to
   an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

   10. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
   value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC
   with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
   Elementary Signal.

   11. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
   value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 48,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1
   SPE Elementary Signal.

   12. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
   with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
   components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
   Elementary Signal.

   13. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
   with value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value
   3, NVC with value 9 (virtual concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with
   value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

   14. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal.

   15. An STS-192 signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 1 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-192 Elementary
   Signal.

   16. An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed
   by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 48, NVC with
   value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 10 to an STS-48
   Elementary Signal.

   17. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 768,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an
   STS-768 Elementary Signal.

   18. 4 x STS-12 signals with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
   formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary
   Signal.

   19. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
   with value 1, NCC with value 768, NVC with value 0, MT with value
   3, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   13

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001


   20. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
   CCT with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with
   value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   21. 2 x STS-4a-5v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
   with value 2 (for arbitrary concatenation), NCC with value 4, NVC
   with value 5, MT with value 2 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
   Elementary Signal.


5. Acknowledgments

   Valuable comments and input were received from many people.


6. Security Considerations

   This draft introduce no new security considerations to either
   [GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP].


7. References

   [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
               CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
               draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-02.txt,
               April, 2001.

   [GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
               Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
               draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-02.txt,
               February 2001.

   [GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
                Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
                draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-02.txt,
                April, 2001.

   [GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet
                Draft, draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt, March,
                2001.

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


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






E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   14

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

   8. Authors' Addresses

      Peter Ashwood-Smith
      Nortel Networks Corp.
      P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
      Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
      Canada
      Phone:  +1 613 763 4534
      Email:  petera@nortelnetworks.com

      Ayan Banerjee
      Calient Networks
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138
      Phone:  +1 408 972-3645
      Email:  abanerjee@calient.net

      Lou Berger
      Movaz Networks, Inc.
      7926 Jones Branch Drive
      Suite 615
      McLean VA, 22102
      Phone:  +1 703 847-1801
      Email:  lberger@movaz.com

      Greg Bernstein
      Ciena Corporation
      10480 Ridgeview Court
      Cupertino, CA 94014
      Phone:  +1 408 366 4713
      Email:  greg@ciena.com

      Angela Chiu
      Celion Networks
      One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
      Phone: +1 732 747 9987
      Email: angela.chiu@celion.com

      John Drake
      Calient Networks
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138
      Phone:  +1 408 972 3720
      Email:  jdrake@calient.net

      Yanhe Fan
      Axiowave Networks, Inc.
      100 Nickerson Road
      Marlborough, MA 01752
      Phone:  +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
      Email:  yfan@axiowave.com



E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   15

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

      Michele Fontana
      Alcatel TND-Vimercate
      Via Trento 30,
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
      Phone: +39 039 686-7053
      Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it

      Gert Grammel
      Alcatel TND-Vimercate
      Via Trento 30,
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
      Phone: +39 039 686-7060
      Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it

      Juergen Heiles
      Siemens AG
      Hofmannstr. 51
      D-81379 Munich, Germany
      Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64
      Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de

      Suresh Katukam
      Cisco Systems
      1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
      Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA
      e-mail: skatukam@cisco.com

      Kireeti Kompella
      Juniper Networks, Inc.
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089
      Email:  kireeti@juniper.net

      Jonathan P. Lang
      Calient Networks
      25 Castilian
      Goleta, CA 93117
      Email:  jplang@calient.net

      Zhi-Wei Lin
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030
      Phone: +1 732 949 5141
      Email: zwlin@lucent.com

      Ben Mack-Crane
      Tellabs
      Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com







E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   16

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

      Eric Mannie
      EBONE
      Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
      1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
      Phone:  +32 2 658 56 52
      Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
      Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18
      Email:  eric.mannie@ebone.com

      Dimitri Papadimitriou
      Senior R&D Engineer - Optical Networking
      Alcatel IPO-NSG
      Francis Wellesplein 1,
      B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
      Phone: +32 3 240-8491
      Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be

      Mike Raftelis
      White Rock Networks
      18111 Preston Road Suite 900
      Dallas, TX 75252
      Phone: +1 (972)588-3728
      Fax:   +1 (972)588-3701
      Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com

      Bala Rajagopalan
      Tellium, Inc.
      2 Crescent Place
      P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4237
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  braja@tellium.com

      Yakov Rekhter
      Juniper Networks, Inc.
      Email:  yakov@juniper.net

      Debanjan Saha
      Tellium Optical Systems
      2 Crescent Place
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4264
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  dsaha@tellium.com

      Vishal Sharma
      Jasmine Networks, Inc.
      3061 Zanker Road, Suite B
      San Jose, CA 95134
      Phone:  +1 408 895 5030
      Fax:    +1 408 895 5050
      Email: vsharma@jasminenetworks.com


E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   17

               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt      May, 2001

      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      250 Apollo Drive
      Chelmsford, MA 01824
      Voice:  +1 978 244 8143
      Email:  swallow@cisco.com

      Z. Bo Tang
      Tellium, Inc.
      2 Crescent Place
      P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4231
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  btang@tellium.com

      Eve Varma
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030
      Phone: +1 732 949 8559
      Email: evarma@lucent.com

      Maarten Vissers
      Botterstraat 45
      Postbus 18
      1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands
      Email: mvissers@lucent.com

      Yangguang Xu
      21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
      North Andover, MA 01845
      Email: xuyg@lucent.com























E. Mannie Editor     Internet-Draft November 2001                   18


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