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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 3717

                                             Bala Rajagopalan
Internet Draft                                 Tellium, Inc.
draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt              James Luciani
Expires on: 3/13/2004                          Crescent Networks
                                             Daniel O. Awduche
                                               MCI


                   IP over Optical Networks: A Framework


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."

   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.

Abstract

   The Internet transport infrastructure is moving towards a model of
   high-speed routers interconnected by optical core networks. The
   architectural choices for the interaction between IP and optical
   network layers, specifically, the routing and signaling aspects, are
   maturing. At the same time, a consensus has emerged in the industry
   on utilizing IP-based protocols for the optical control plane. This
   document defines a framework for IP over Optical networks,
   considering both the IP-based control plane for optical networks as
   well as IP-optical network interactions (together referred to as "IP
   over optical networks").










                         Expires on 3/13/2004                   Page 1

                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


                             Table of Contents
                             -----------------

Abstract..............................................................1
1. Introduction.......................................................3
2. Terminology and Concepts...........................................4
3. The Network Model..................................................8
 3.1  Network Interconnection.........................................8
 3.2  Control Structure..............................................10
4. IP over Optical Service Models and Requirements...................12
 4.1  Domain Services Model..........................................12
 4.2  Unified Service Model..........................................13
 4.3  Which Service Model?...........................................14
 4.4 What are the Possible Services?.................................14
5. IP transport over Optical Networks................................15
 5.1 Interconnection Models..........................................15
 5.2 Routing Approaches..............................................16
 5.3 Signaling-Related...............................................19
 5.4  End-to-End Protection Models...................................21
6. IP-based Optical Control Plane Issues.............................23
 6.1  Addressing.....................................................23
 6.2  Neighbor Discovery.............................................24
 6.3  Topology Discovery.............................................26
 6.4  Protection and Restoration Models..............................26
 6.5  Route Computation..............................................27
 6.6  Signaling Issues...............................................29
 6.7  Optical Internetworking........................................31
7. Other Issues......................................................32
 7.1   WDM and TDM in the Same Network...............................32
 7.2   Wavelength Conversion.........................................33
 7.3   Service Provider Peering Points...............................33
 7.4   Rate of Lightpath Set-Up......................................33
 7.5   Distributed vs. Centralized Provisioning......................34
 7.6   Optical Networks with Additional Configurable Components......35
 7.7   Optical Networks with Limited Wavelength Conversion Capability35
8.  Evolution Path for IP over Optical Architecture..................36
9. Security Considerations...........................................38
 9.1 General Security Aspects........................................39
 9.2 Security Considerations for Protocol Mechanisms.................40
10. Summary and Conclusions..........................................40
11. References.......................................................40
12. Acknowledgments..................................................41
13. Contributors.....................................................42





                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 2
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


1. Introduction

   Optical network technologies are evolving rapidly in terms of
   functions and capabilities. The increasing importance of optical
   networks is evidenced by the copious amount of attention focused on
   IP over optical networks and related photonic and electronic
   interworking issues by all major network service providers,
   telecommunications equipment vendors, and standards organizations.
   In this regard, the term "optical network" is used generically in
   practice to refer to both SONET/SDH-based transport networks, as
   well as switched optical networks (including all-optical networks).

   It has been realized that optical networks must be survivable,
   flexible, and controllable. There is, therefore, an ongoing trend to
   introduce intelligence in the control plane of optical networks to
   make them more versatile [1]. An essential attribute of intelligent
   optical networks is the capability to instantiate and route optical
   layer connections in real-time or near real-time, and to provide
   capabilities that enhance network survivability. Furthermore, there
   is a need for multi-vendor optical network interoperability, when an
   optical network may consist of interconnected vendor-specific
   optical sub-networks.

   The optical network must also be versatile because some service
   providers may offer generic optical layer services that may not be
   client-specific. It would therefore be necessary to have an optical
   network control plane that can handle such generic optical services.

   There is general consensus in the industry that the optical network
   control plane should utilize IP-based protocols for dynamic
   provisioning and restoration of optical channels within and across
   optical sub-networks. This is based on the practical view that
   signaling and routing mechanisms developed for IP traffic
   engineering applications could be re-used in optical networks.
   Nevertheless, the issues and requirements that are specific to
   optical networking must be understood to suitably adopt and adapt
   the IP-based protocols. This is especially the case for restoration,
   and for routing and signaling in all-optical networks.  Also, there
   are different views on the model for interaction between the optical
   network and client networks, such as IP networks. Reasonable
   architectural alternatives in this regard must be supported, with an
   understanding of their relative merits.

   Thus, there are two fundamental issues related to IP over optical
   networks. The first is the adaptation and reuse of IP control plane
   protocols within the optical network control plane, irrespective of
   the types of digital clients that utilize the optical network. The
   second is the transport of IP traffic through an optical network
   together with the control and coordination issues that arise
   therefrom.

   This document defines a framework for IP over optical networks
   covering the requirements and mechanisms for establishing an IP-

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 3
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   centric optical control plane, and the architectural aspects of IP
   transport over optical networks. In this regard, it is recognized
   that the specific capabilities required for IP over optical networks
   would depend on the services expected at the IP-optical interface as
   well as the optical sub-network interfaces.  Depending on the
   specific operational requirements, a progression of capabilities is
   possible, reflecting increasingly sophisticated interactions at
   these interfaces. This document therefore advocates the definition
   of "capability sets" that define the evolution of functionality at
   the interfaces as more sophisticated operational requirements arise.

   This document is organized as follows. In the next section,
   terminology covering some basic concepts related to this framework
   are described. The definitions are specific to this framework and
   may have other connotations elsewhere. In Section 3, the network
   model pertinent to this framework is described. The service model
   and requirements for IP-optical, and multi-vendor optical
   internetworking are described in Section 4. This section also
   considers some general requirements.  Section 5 considers the
   architectural models for IP-optical interworking, describing the
   relative merits of each model. It should be noted that it is not the
   intent of this document to promote any particular model over the
   others. However, particular aspects of the models that may make one
   approach more appropriate than another in certain circumstances are
   described. Section 6 describes IP-centric control plane mechanisms
   for optical networks, covering signaling and routing issues in
   support of provisioning and restoration. The approaches described in
   Section 5 and 6 range from the relatively simple to the
   sophisticated. Section 7 describes a number of specialized issues in
   relation to IP over optical networks.  Section 8 describes a
   possible evolution path for IP over optical networking capabilities
   in terms of increasingly sophisticated functionality that may be
   supported as the need arises. Section 9 considers security issues
   pertinent to this framework. Finally, the summary and conclusion are
   presented in Section 10.


2. Terminology and Concepts

   This section introduces  terminology pertinent to this framework and
   some related concepts. The definitions are specific to this
   framework and may have other interpretations elsewhere.


   WDM
   ---

   Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) is a technology that allows
   multiple optical signals operating at different wavelengths to be
   multiplexed onto a single optical fiber and transported in parallel
   through the fiber. In general, each optical wavelength may carry
   digital client payloads at a different data rate (e.g., OC-3c, OC-
   12c, OC- 48c, OC-192c, etc.) and in a different format (SONET,

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 4
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   Ethernet, ATM, etc.) For example, there are many commercial WDM
   networks in existence today that support a mix of SONET signals
   operating at OC-48c (approximately 2.5 Gbps) and OC-192
   (approximately  10 Gbps) over a single optical fiber. An optical
   system with WDM capability can achieve parallel transmission of
   multiple wavelengths gracefully while maintaining high system
   performance and reliability.  In the near future, commercial dense
   WDM systems are expected to concurrently carry  more than 160
   wavelengths at data rates of OC-192c and above, for a total of 1.6
   Tbps or more. The term WDM will be used  in this document to refer
   to both WDM and DWDM (Dense WDM).

   In general, it is worth noting that WDM links are affected by the
   following factors, which may introduce impairments into the optical
   signal path:

   1. The number of wavelengths on a single fiber.
   2. The serial bit rate per wavelength.
   3. The type of fiber.
   4. The amplification mechanism.
   5. The number and type of nodes through which the signals pass
      before reaching the egress node or before regeneration.

   All these factors (and others not mentioned here) constitute domain
   specific features of optical transport networks. As noted in [1],
   these features should be taken into account in developing standards
   based solutions for IP over optical networks.

   Optical cross-connect (OXC)
   ---------------------------

   An OXC is a space-division switch that can switch an optical data
   stream from an input port to a output port. Such a switch may
   utilize optical-electrical conversion at the input port and
   electrical-optical conversion at the output port, or it may be all-
   optical. An OXC is assumed to have a control-plane processor that
   implements the signaling and routing protocols necessary for
   computing and instantiating optical channel connectivity in the
   optical domain.

   Optical channel trail or Lightpath
   ----------------------------------

   An optical channel trail is a point-to-point optical layer
   connection between two access points in an optical network. In this
   document, the term "lightpath" is used interchangeably with optical
   channel trail.

   Optical mesh sub-network
   ------------------------

   An optical sub-network, as used in this framework, is a network of
   OXCs that supports end-to-end networking of optical channel trails

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 5
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   providing functionality like routing, monitoring, grooming, and
   protection and restoration of optical channels. The interconnection
   of OXCs in this network can be based on a general mesh topology.
   The following sub-layers may be associated with this network:

   (a) An optical multiplex section (OMS) layer network : The optical
       multiplex section layer provides transport for the optical
       channels.  The information contained in this layer is a data
       stream comprising a set of  optical channels, which may have a
       defined aggregate bandwidth.

   (b) An optical transmission section (OTS) layer network : This layer
       provides functionality for transmission of optical signals
   through different types of optical media.

   This framework does not address the interaction between the optical
   sub-network and the OMS, or between the OMS and OTS layer networks.

   Mesh optical network (or simply, "optical network")
   ---------------------------------------------------

   A mesh  optical network, as used in document, is a topologically
   connected collection of optical sub-networks whose node degree may
   exceed 2. Such an optical network is assumed to be under the purview
   of a single administrative entity. It is also possible to conceive
   of a large scale global mesh optical network consisting of the
   voluntary interconnection of autonomous optical networks, each of
   which is owned and administered by an independent entity. In such an
   environment, abstraction can be used to hide the internal details of
   each autonomous optical cloud from external clouds.

   Optical internetwork
   --------------------

   An optical internetwork is a mesh-connected collection of optical
   networks. Each of these networks may be under a different
   administration.

   Wavelength continuity property
   ------------------------------

   A lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength continuity property if
   it is transported over the same wavelength end-to-end. Wavelength
   continuity is required in optical  networks with no wavelength
   conversion feature.

   Wavelength path
   ---------------

   A lightpath that satisfies the wavelength continuity property is
   called a wavelength path.



                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 6
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   Opaque vs. transparent optical networks
   ---------------------------------------

   A transparent optical network is an optical network in which optical
   signals are transported from transmitter to receiver entirely in the
   optical domain without OEO conversion.  Generally, intermediate
   switching nodes in a transparent optical network do not have access
   to the payload carried by the optical signals.

   Note that amplification  of signals at transit nodes is
   permitted in transparent optical networks (e.g. using Erbium Doped
   Fiber Amplifiers รป EDFAs).

   On the other hand, in opaque optical networks,  transit nodes may
   manipulate  optical signals traversing through them.   An example of
   such manipulation would be OEO conversion which may involve 3R
   operations (reshaping, retiming, regeneration, and perhaps
   amplification).

   Trust domain
   ------------

   A trust domain is a network under a single technical administration
   in which adequate security measures are established to prevent
   unauthorized intrusion from outside the domain. Hence, it may be
   assumed that most nodes in the domain are deemed to be secure or
   trusted in some fashion.   Generally, the rule for "single"
   administrative control over a trust domain may be relaxed in
   practice if a set of administrative entities agree to trust one
   another to form an enlarged heterogeneous trust domain. However, to
   simplify the discussions in this document, it will be assumed,
   without loss of generality, that the term trust domain applies to a
   single administrative entity with appropriate security policies.  It
   should be noted that within a trust domain, any subverted node can
   send control messages which can compromise the entire network.

   Flow
   ----

   In this document, the term flow will be used to signify the smallest
   non-separable stream of data, from the point of view of an endpoint
   or termination point (source or destination node).  The reader
   should note that the term flow is heavily overloaded in contemporary
   networking literature. In this document, we will consider a
   wavelength to be a flow, under certain circumstances. However, if
   there is a method to partition the bandwidth of the wavelength, then
   each partition may be considered a flow, for example using time
   division multiplexing (TDM), it may be feasible to consider each
   quanta of time within a given wavelength as a flow.

   Traffic Trunk
   -------------


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 7
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   A traffic trunk is an abstraction of traffic flow traversing the
   same path between two access points which allows some
   characteristics and attributes of the traffic to be parameterized.

3. The Network Model

3.1  Network Interconnection

   The network model considered in this memo consists of IP routers
   attached to an optical core internetwork, and connected to their
   peers over dynamically established switched optical channels. The
   optical core itself is assumed to be incapable of processing
   individual IP packets in the data plane.

   The optical internetwork is assumed to consist of multiple optical
   networks, each of which may be administered by a different entity.
   Each optical network consists of sub-networks interconnected by
   optical fiber links in a general topology (referred to as an optical
   mesh network). This network may contain re-configurable optical
   equipment from a single vendor or from multiple vendors. In the near
   term, it may be expected that each sub-network will consist of
   switches from a single vendor. In the future, as standardization
   efforts mature, each optical sub-network may in fact contain optical
   switches from different vendors. In any case, each sub-network
   itself is assumed to be mesh-connected internally. In general, it
   can be expected that topologically adjacent OXCs in an optical mesh
   network will be connected via multiple, parallel (bi-directional)
   optical links. This network model is shown in Figure 1.

   In this environment, an optical sub-network may consist entirely of
   all-optical OXCs or OXCs with optical-electrical-optical (OEO)
   conversion.  Interconnection between sub-networks is assumed to be
   implemented through compatible physical interfaces, with suitable
   optical-electrical conversions where necessary. The routers that
   have direct physical connectivity with the optical network are
   referred to as "edge routers" with respect to the optical network.
   As shown in Figure 1, other client networks (e.g., ATM) may also
   connect to the optical network.

   The switching function in an OXC is controlled by appropriately
   configuring the cross-connect fabric. Conceptually, this may be
   viewed as setting up a cross-connect table whose entries are of the
   form <input port i, output port j>, indicating that the data stream
   entering input port i will be switched to output port j.  In the
   context of a wavelength selective cross-connect (generally referred
   to as a WXC), the cross-connect tables may also indicate the input
   and output wavelengths along with the input and output ports. A
   lightpath from an ingress port in an OXC to an egress port in a
   remote OXC is established by setting up suitable cross-connects in
   the ingress, the egress and a set of intermediate OXCs such that a
   continuous physical path exists from the ingress to the egress port.
   Optical paths tend  to be bi-directional, i.e., the return path from
   the egress port to the ingress port is typically routed along the

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 8
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   same set of intermediate interface cards as the forward path, but
   this may not be the case under all circumstances.

                              Optical Network
                      +---------------------------------------+
                      |                                       |
                      |          Optical Subnetwork           |
      +---------+     | +-----------------------------------+ |
      |         |     | | +-----+      +-----+      +-----+ | |
      | IP      |     | | |     |      |     |      |     | | |
      | Network +-UNI --+-+ OXC +------+ OXC +------+ OXC + | |
      |         |     | | |     |      |     |      |     | | |
      +---------+     | | +--+--+      +--+--+      +--+--+ | |
                      | +----|------------|------------|----+ |
                      |      |            |            |      |
                      |     INNI         INNI         INNI    |
      +---------+     |      |            |            |      |
      |         |     | +----+------+     |    +-------+----+ |
      | IP      + UNI-  |           |  +-----+ |            | |
      | Network |     | |  Optical  |          |   Optical  | |
      |         |     | |Subnetwork +---INNI---+ Subnetwork | |
      +---------+     | |           |          |            | |
                      | +-----+-----+          +------+-----+ |
                      |       |                       |       |
                      +-------+-----------------------+-------+
                              |                       |
                             ENNI                    ENNI
                              |                       |
                      +-------+-----------------------+-------+
                      |                                       |
                      |           Optical Network             |
                      |                                       |
                      +-------+-----------------------+-------+
                              |                       |
                             UNI                     UNI
                              |                       |
                        +-----+----- --+        +-----+------+
                        |              |        |            |
                        | Other Client |        |Other Client|
                        |   Network    |        |  Network   |
                        | (e.g., ATM)  |        |            |
                        +- ------------+        +------------+

                   Figure 1: Optical Internetwork Model

   Multiple traffic streams exiting from an OXC may be multiplexed onto
   a fiber optic link using WDM technology. The WDM functionality may
   exist  outside of the OXC, and be transparent to the OXC. Or, this
   function  may be built into the OXC. In the later case, the cross-
   connect table   (conceptually) consists of pairs of the form,
   <{input port i, Lambda(j)}, {output port k, Lambda(l)}>. This
   indicates that the data stream received on wavelength Lambda(j) over
   input port i is switched to output port k on Lambda(l). Automated

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                   Page 9
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   establishment of lightpaths involves setting up the cross-connect
   table entries in the appropriate OXCs in a coordinated manner such
   that the desired  physical path is realized.

   Under this network model, a switched lightpath must be established
   between a pair of IP routers before the routers can transfer user
   traffic among themselves. A lightpath between IP routers may
   traverse multiple optical networks and be subject to different
   provisioning and restoration procedures in each network.

   The IP-based control plane issue for optical networks pertains to
   the design of standard signaling and routing protocols for
   provisioning and restoration of lightpaths across multiple optical
   networks. Similarly, IP transport over optical networks
   involves establishing IP reachability and seamlessly constructing
   forwarding paths from one IP endpoint to another over an optical
   network.


3.2  Control Structure

   There are three logical control interfaces identified in Figure 1.
   These are the client-optical internetwork interface, the internal
   node-to-node interface within an optical network (between OXCs in
   different sub-networks), and the external node-to-node interface
   between nodes in different optical networks. These interfaces are
   also referred to as the User-Network Interface (UNI), the internal
   NNI (INNI), and the external NNI (ENNI), respectively.

   The distinction between these interfaces arises out of the type and
   amount of control information flow across them. The client-optical
   internetwork interface (UNI) represents a service boundary between
   the client (e.g. IP router) and the optical network.  The client and
   server (optical network) are essentially two different roles: the
   client role requests a service connection from a server; the server
   role establishes the connection to fulfill the service request --
   provided all relevant admission control conditions are satisfied.

   Thus, the control flow across the client-optical internetwork
   interface  is dependent on  the set of services defined across it
   and the manner in which the services may be accessed. The service
   models are described in Section 4. The NNIs represent vendor-
   independent standardized interfaces for control flow between nodes.
   The distinction between the INNI and the ENNI is that the former is
   an interface within a given network under a single technical
   administration, while the later indicates an interface at the
   administrative boundary between networks. The INNI and ENNI may thus
   differ in the policies that restrict  control flow between nodes.

   Security, scalability, stability, and information hiding are
   important considerations in the specification of the ENNI. It is
   possible in principle to harmonize the control flow across the UNI
   and the NNI and eliminate the distinction between them. On the other

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 10
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   hand, it may be required to minimize flow of control information,
   especially routing-related information, over the UNI; and even over
   the ENNI.  In this case, UNI and NNIs may look different in some
   respects. In this document, these interfaces are treated as
   distinct.

   The client-optical internetwork interface  can be categorized as
   public or private depending upon context and service models. Routing
   information (i.e., topology state information) can be exchanged
   across a private client-optical internetwork interface. On the other
   hand, such information is not exchanged across a public client-
   optical internetwork interface, or such information may be exchanged
   with very explicit restrictions (including, for example abstraction,
   filtration, etc). Thus, different relationships (e.g., peer or over-
   lay, Section 5) may occur across private and public logical
   interfaces.

   The physical control structure used to realize these logical
   interfaces may vary. For instance, for the client-optical
   internetwork interface, some of the possibilities are:

   1. Direct interface: An in-band or out-of-band IP control channel
     (IPCC) may be implemented between an edge router and each OXC
     to which it is connected.  This control channel is used for
     exchanging signaling and routing messages between the router and
     the OXC. With a direct interface, the edge router and the OXC it
     connects to are peers with respect to the control plane. This
     situation is shown in Figure 2. The type of routing and signaling
     information exchanged across  the direct interface may vary
     depending on the service definition. This issue is addressed in
     the next section. Some choices for  the routing protocol are OSPF
     or ISIS (with traffic engineering extensions and additional
     enhancements to deal with the peculiar characteristics of optical
     networks) or BGP, or some other protocol. Other directory-based
     routing information exchanges are also possible. Some of the
     signaling protocol choices are adaptations of RSVP-TE or CR-LDP.
     The details of how the IP control channel is realized is outside
     the scope of this document.

   2. Indirect interface: An out-of-band IP control channel may be
     implemented between the client and a device in the optical network
     to signal service requests and responses. For instance, a
     management system or a server in the optical network may receive
     service requests from clients. Similarly, out-of-band signaling
     may be used between management systems in client and optical
     networks to signal service requests. In these cases, there is no
     direct control interaction between clients and respective
      OXCs. One reason to have an indirect interface would be that the
      OXCs and/or clients do not support a direct signaling interface.





                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 11
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   +---------------------------+    +---------------------------+
   |                           |    |                           |
   | +---------+   +---------+ |    | +---------+   +---------+ |
   | |         |   |         | |    | |         |   |         | |
   | | Routing |   |Signaling| |    | | Routing |   |Signaling| |
   | | Protocol|   |Protocol | |    | | Protocol|   |Protocol | |
   | |         |   |         | |    | |         |   |         | |
   | +-----+---+   +---+-----+ |    | +-----+---+   +---+-----+ |
   |       |           |       |    |       |           |       |
   |       |           |       |    |       |           |       |
   |    +--+-----------+---+   |    |    +--+-----------+---+   |
   |    |                  |   |    |    |                  |   |
   |    |     IP Layer     +....IPCC.....+     IP Layer     |   |
   |    |                  |   |    |    |                  |   |
   |    +------------------+   |    |    +------------------+   |
   |                           |    |                           |
   |        Edge Router        |    |            OXC            |
   +---------------------------+    +---------------------------+

                            Figure 2: Direct Interface

   3. Provisioned interface: In this case, the optical network services
      are manually provisioned and there is no control interactions
      between the client and the optical network.

   Although different control structures are possible, further
   descriptions in this framework assume direct interfaces for IP-
   optical and optical sub-network control interactions.


4. IP over Optical Service Models and Requirements

   In this section, the service models and requirements at the UNI and
   the NNIs are considered. Two general models have emerged for the
   services at the UNI (which can also be applied at the NNIs). These
   models are as follows.

4.1  Domain Services Model

   Under the domain services model, the optical network primarily
   offers high bandwidth connectivity in the form of lightpaths.
   Standardized signaling across the UNI (Figure 1) is used to invoke
   the following services:

  1. Lightpath creation: This service allows a lightpath with the
     specified attributes to be created between a pair of termination
     points in the optical network. Lightpath creation may be subject
     to network-defined policies (e.g., connectivity restrictions) and
     security procedures.

   2. Lightpath deletion: This service allows an existing lightpath to
     be deleted.


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 12
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   3. Lightpath modification: This service allows certain parameters of
     the lightpath to be modified.

   4. Lightpath status enquiry: This service allows the status of
     certain parameters of the lightpath (referenced by its ID) to be
     queried by the router that created the lightpath.

   An end-system discovery procedure may be used over the UNI to verify
   local port connectivity between the optical and client devices, and
   allows each device to bootstrap the UNI control channel. Finally, a
   "service discovery" procedure may be employed as a precursor to
   obtaining UNI services. Service discovery allows a client to
   determine the static parameters of the interconnection with the
   optical network, including the UNI signaling protocols supported.
   The protocols for neighbor and service discovery are different from
   the UNI signaling protocol itself (for example, see LMP [2]).

   Because a small set of well-defined services is offered across the
   UNI, the signaling protocol requirements are minimal. Specifically,
   the signaling protocol is required to convey a few messages with
   certain attributes in a point-to-point manner between the router and
   the optical network. Such a protocol may be based on RSVP-TE or LDP,
   for example.

   The optical domain services model does not deal with the type and
   nature of routing protocols within and across optical networks.

   The optical domain services model would result in the establishment
   of a lightpath topology between routers at the edge of the optical
   network. The resulting overlay model for IP over optical networks
   is discussed in Section 5.

4.2  Unified Service Model

   Under this model, the IP and optical networks are treated together
   as a single integrated network from a control plane point of view.
   In this regard, the OXCs are treated just like any other router as
   far as the control plane is considered. Thus, in principle, there is
   no distinction between the UNI, NNIs and any other router-to-router
   interface from a routing and signaling point of view. It is assumed
   that this control plane is IP-based, for example leveraging the
   traffic engineering extensions for MPLS or GMPLS, as described in
   [1]. The unified service model has so far been discussed only in the
   context of a single administrative domain. A unified control plane
   is possible even when there are administrative boundaries within an
   optical internetwork, but some of the integrated routing
   capabilities may  not be practically attractive or even feasible in
   this case (see Section 5).

   Under the unified service model and within the context of a GMPLS
   network, optical network services are obtained implicitly during
   end-to-end GMPLS signaling. Specifically, an edge router can create
   a lightpath with specified attributes, or delete and modify

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 13
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   lightpaths as it creates GMPLS label-switched paths (LSPs). In this
   regard, the services obtained from the optical network are similar
   to the domain services model. These services, however, may be
   invoked in a more seamless manner as compared to the domain services
   model. For instance, when routers are attached to a single optical
   network (i.e., there are no ENNIs), a remote router could compute an
   end-to-end path across the optical internetwork. It can then
   establish an LSP across the optical internetwork. But the edge
   routers must still recognize that an LSP  across the optical
   internetwork is a lightpath, or a conduit for multiple packet-based
   LSPs.

   The concept of "forwarding adjacency" can be used to specify virtual
   links across optical internetworks in routing protocols such as OSPF
   [3]. In essence, once a lightpath is established across an optical
   internetwork between two edge routers, the lightpath can be
   advertised as a forwarding adjacency (a virtual link) between these
   routers.  Thus, from a data plane point of view, the lightpaths
   result in a virtual overlay between edge routers. The decisions as
   to when to create such lightpaths, and the bandwidth management for
   these lightpaths is identical in both the domain services model and
   the unified service model. The routing and signaling models for
   unified services is described in Sections 5 and 6.

4.3  Which Service Model?

   The relative merits of the above service models can be debated at
   length, but the approach recommended in this framework is to define
   routing and signaling mechanisms in support of both models. As noted
   above, signaling for service requests can be unified to cover both
   models. The developments in GMPLS signaling [4] for the unified
   service model and its adoption for UNI signaling [5, 6] under the
   domain services model essentially supports this view. The
   significant difference between the service models, however, is in
   routing protocols, as described in Sections 5 and 6.

4.4 What are the Possible Services?

   Specialized services may be built atop the point-to-point
   connectivity service offered by the optical network. For example,
   optical virtual private networks and bandwidth on demand are some of
   the services that can be envisioned.

4.4.1  Optical Virtual Private Networks (OVPNs)

   Given that the data plane links between IP routers over an optical
   network amounts to a virtual topology which is an overlay over the
   fiber optic network, it is easy to envision a virtual private
   network of lightpaths that interconnect routers (or any other set of
   clients) belonging to a single entity or a group of related entities
   across a public optical network. Indeed, in the case where the
   optical network provides connectivity for multiple sets of external
   client networks, there has to be a way to enforce routing policies

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 14
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   that ensure routing separation between different sets of client
   networks  (i.e., VPN service).


5. IP transport over Optical Networks

   To examine the architectural alternatives for IP over optical
   networks, it is important to distinguish between the data and
   control planes. The optical network provides a service to external
   entities in the form of fixed bandwidth transport pipes (optical
   paths). IP routers at the edge of the optical networks must
   necessarily have  such paths established between them before
   communication at the IP layer can commence.  Thus, the IP data plane
   over optical networks is realized over a virtual topology of optical
   paths. On the other hand, IP routers and OXCs can have a peer
   relation with respect to the control plane, especially for routing
   protocols that permit the dynamic discovery of IP endpoints attached
   to the optical network.

   The IP over optical network architecture is defined essentially by
   the organization of the control plane. The assumption in this
   framework is that an IP-based control plane [1] is used, such as
   GMPLS. Depending on the service model(Section 4), however, the
   control planes in the IP and optical networks can be loosely or
   tightly coupled. This coupling determines the following
   characteristics:

   o The details of the topology and routing information advertised by
     the optical network across the client interface;

   o The level of control that IP routers can exercise in selecting
     explicit paths for connections across the optical network;

   o Policies regarding the dynamic provisioning of optical paths
     between routers. These include access control, accounting, and
     security issues.

   The following interconnection models are then possible:

5.1 Interconnection Models

5.1.1 The Peer Model

   Under the peer model, the IP control plane acts as a peer of the
   optical transport network control plane. This implies that a single
   instance of the control plane is deployed over the IP and optical
   domains. When there is a single optical network involved and the IP
   and optical domains belong to the same entity, then a common IGP
   such as OSPF or IS-IS, with appropriate extensions, can be used to
   distribute topology information [7] over the integrated IP-optical
   network. In the case of OSPF, opaque LSAs can be used to advertise
   topology state information. In the case of IS-IS, extended TLVs will


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 15
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   have to be defined to propagate topology state information. Many of
   these extensions are occurring within the context of GMPLS.

   When an optical internetwork with multiple optical networks is
   involved (e.g.,  spanning different administrative domains), a
   single instance of an intra-domain routing protocol is not
   attractive or even realistic. In this case, inter-domain routing and
   signaling protocols are needed. In either case, a tacit assumption
   is that a common addressing scheme will be used for the optical and
   IP networks. A common address space can be trivially realized by
   using IP addresses in both IP and optical domains. Thus, the optical
   network elements become IP addressable entities as noted in [1].

5.1.2 The Overlay Model

   Under the overlay model, the IP layer routing, topology
   distribution, and signaling protocols are independent of the
   routing, topology distribution, and signaling protocols within the
   optical domain. This model is conceptually similar to the classical
   IP over ATM or MPOA models, but applied to an optical internetwork
   instead. In the overlay model, a separate instance of the control
   plane (especially the routing and signaling protocols) would have to
   be deployed in the optical domain, independent of what exists in the
   IP domain. In certain circumstances, it may also be feasible to
   statically configure the optical channels that provide connectivity
   for the IP domain in the overlay model. Static configuration can be
   effected through network management functions. Static configuration,
   however, is unlikely to scale in very large networks, and may not
   support the rapid connection provisioning requirements of  future
   highly competitive networking environments.

5.1.3  The Augmented Model

   Under the augmented model, there are separate routing instances in
   the IP and optical domains, but certain types of information from
   one routing instance can be passed through to the other routing
   instance. For example, external IP addresses could be carried within
   the optical routing protocols to allow reachability information to
   be passed to IP clients.

   The routing approaches corresponding to these interconnection models
   are described below.

5.2 Routing Approaches

5.2.1 Integrated Routing

   This routing approach supports the peer model within  a single
   administrative domain. Under this approach, the IP and optical
   networks are assumed to run the same instance of an IP routing
   protocol, e.g., OSPF with suitable "optical" extensions.  These
   extensions must capture optical link parameters, and any constraints
   that are specific to optical networks. The topology and link state

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 16
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   information maintained by all nodes (OXCs and routers) may be
   identical, but not necessarily. This approach permits a router to
   compute an end-to-end path to another router across the optical
   network. Suppose the path computation is triggered by the need to
   route a label switched path (LSP) in a GMPLS environment. Such an
   LSP can be established using GMPLS signaling, e.g., RSVP-TE or CR-
   LDP with appropriate extensions. In this case, the signaling
   protocol will establish a lightpath between two edge routers. This
   lightpath is in essence a tunnel across the optical network, and may
   have capacity much larger than the bandwidth required to support the
   first LSP. Thus, it is essential that other routers in the network
   realize the availability of excess capacity within the lightpath so
   that subsequent LSPs between the routers can use it rather than
   instantiating a new lightpath. The lightpath may  therefore be
   advertised as a virtual link in the topology as a means to address
   this issue.

   The notion of "forwarding adjacency" (FA) described in [3] is
   essential in propagating existing lightpath information to other
   routers. An FA is essentially a virtual link advertised into a link
   state routing protocol. Thus, an FA could be described by the same
   parameters that define resources in any regular link. While it is
   necessary to specify the mechanism for creating an FA, it is not
   necessary to specify how an FA is used by the routing scheme. Once
   an FA is advertised in a link state protocol, its usage for routing
   LSPs is defined by the route computation and traffic engineering
   algorithms implemented.

   It should be noted that at the IP-optical interface, the physical
   ports over which routers are connected to OXCs constrain the
   connectivity and resource availability. Suppose a router R1 is
   connected to OXC O1 over two ports, P1 and P2. Under integrated
   routing, the connectivity between R1 and O1 over the two ports would
   have been captured in the link state representation of the network.
   Now, suppose an FA at full port bandwidth is created from R1 to
   another router R2 over port P1. While this FA is advertised as a
   virtual link between R1 and R2, it is also necessary to remove the
   link R1-O1 (over P1) from the link state representation since that
   port is no longer available for creating a lightpath. Thus, as FAs
   are created, an overlaid set of virtual links is introduced into the
   link state representation, replacing the links previously advertised
   at the IP-Optical interface. Finally, the details of the optical
   network captured in the link state representation is replaced by a
   network of FAs. The above scheme is one way to tackle the problem.
   Another approach is to associate appropriate dynamic attributes with
   link state information, so that a link that cannot be used to
   establish a particular type of connection will be appropriately
   tagged.   Generally, however, there is a great deal of similarity
   between integrated routing   and domain-specific routing (described
   next). Both ultimately deal with the creation of  a virtual
   lightpath topology (which is overlaid over the optical network) to
   meet certain traffic engineering objectives.


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 17
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt



5.2.2 Domain-Specific Routing

   The domain-specific routing approach supports the augmented
   interconnection model. Under this approach, routing within the
   optical and IP domains are separated, with a standard routing
   protocol running between domains. This is similar to the IP inter-
   domain routing model. A specific  approach for this is considered
   next. It is to be noted that other approaches are equally possible.

5.2.2.1  Domain-Specific Routing using BGP

   The inter-domain IP routing protocol, BGP [8], may be adapted for
   exchanging routing information between IP and optical domains. This
   would allow routers to advertise IP address prefixes within their
   network to the optical internetwork and to receive external IP
   address prefixes from the optical internetwork. The optical
   internetwork transports the reachability information from one IP
   network to others. For instance, edge routers and OXCs can run
   exterior BGP (EBGP).  Within the optical internetwork, interior BGP
   (IBGP) is may be used between border optical switches, and EBGP may
   be used between different networks (over ENNI, Figure 1).

   Under this scheme, it may be necessary to identify the egress points
   in the optical internetwork corresponding to externally reachable IP
   addresses. To see this, suppose an edge router intends to establish
   an LSP to a destination node across the optical internetwork. It may
   request a direct lightpath to that destination, without explicitly
   specifying the egress optical port for the lightpath because the
   optical internetwork has knowledge of externally reachable IP
   addresses. However, if the same edge router were to establish
   another LSP to a different external destination, then for efficiency
   reasons, it may first need to determine whether there is an existing
   lightpath (with sufficient residual capacity) to the target
   destination. For this purpose, it may be necessary for edge routers
   to keep track of which egress ports in the optical internetwork lead
   to which external destinations. Thus, a border OXC receiving
   external IP prefixes from an edge router through EBGP must include
   its own IP address as the egress point before propagating these
   prefixes to other border OXCs or edge routers. An edge router
   receiving this information need not propagate the egress address
   further, but it must keep the association   between external IP
   addresses and egress OXC addresses. When optical VPNs are
   implemented, the address prefixes advertised by the border OXCs may
   be accompanied by some VPN specific identification.

   There are however, some potential negative effects that could result
   from domain-specific routing using BGP in an IPO environment:

     o The amount of information that optical nodes will have to
       maintain will not be bound by the size of the optical network
       anymore, but will have to include external routes as well.


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 18
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


     o The stability of the optical network control plane will
       no longer be dictated solely by the dynamics emanating
       within the optical network, but may be affected by the
       dynamics originating from external routing domains
       from which  external reachability information is received.


5.2.3  Overlay Routing

   The overlay routing approach supports the overlay interconnection
   model.Under this approach, an overlay mechanism that allows edge
   routers toregister and query for external addresses is implemented.
   This is conceptually similar to the address resolution mechanism
   used for IP over ATM. Under this approach, the optical network could
   implement a registry that allows edge routers to register IP
   addresses and VPN identifiers. An edge router may be allowed to
   query for external addresses belonging to the same set of VPNs it
   belongs to. A successful query would return the address of the
   egress optical port through which the external destination can be
   reached.


   Because IP-optical interface connectivity is limited, the
   determination of how many lightpaths must be established and to what
   endpoints are traffic engineering decisions. Furthermore, after an
   initial set of such lightpaths are established, these may be used as
   adjacencies within VPNs for a VPN-wide routing scheme, for example,
   OSPF. With this approach, an edge router could first determine other
   edge routers of interest by querying the registry. After it obtains
   the appropriate addresses, an initial overlay lightpath topology may
   be formed. Routing adjacencies may then be established across the
   lightpaths and further routing information may be exchanged to
   establish VPN-wide routing.

5.3 Signaling-Related

5.3.1 The Role of MPLS

   It is possible to model wavelengths, and potentially TDM channels
   within a wavelength as "labels". This concept was proposed in [1],
   and "generalized" MPLS (GMPLS) mechanisms for realizing this are
   described in [4]. MPLS signaling protocols with traffic engineering
   extensions, such as RSVP-TE, can be appropriately extended and used
   for signaling lightpath requests. These protocols can be adapted for
   client/server signaling in the case of the domain services model,
   and for end-to-end integrated signaling in the case of the unified
   services model.




5.3.2 Signaling Models


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 19
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   With the domain-services model, the signaling control plane in the
   IP and optical network are completely separate as shown in Figure 3
   below. This separation also implies the separation of IP and optical
   address spaces (even though the optical network would be using
   internal IP addressing). While RSVP-TE and LDP can be adapted for
   UNI signaling, the full functionality of these protocols will not be
   used. For example, UNI signaling does not require the specification
   of explicit routes. On the other hand, based on the service
   attributes, new objects need to be signaled using these protocols as
   described in [5, 6].





   MPLS Signaling      UNI Signaling     MPLS or other signaling
                                    |
   +-----------------------------+  |   +-----------------------------+
   |         IP Network          |  |   |       Optical Internetwork  |
   |  +---------+   +---------+  |  |   |  +---------+   +---------+  |
   |  |         |   |         |  |  |   |  |         |   |         |  |
   |  | Router  +---+ Router  +-----+------+  OXC    +---+   OXC   |  |
   |  |         |   |         |  |  |   |  |         |   |         |  |
   |  +-----+---+   +---+-----+  |  |   |  +-----+---+   +---+-----+  |
   +-----------------------------+  |   +-----------------------------+
                                    |
                                    |
              Completely Separated Addressing and Control Planes

                 Figure 3: Domain Services Signaling Model

   With the unified services model, the addressing is common in the IP
   network and optical internetwork and the respective signaling
   control are related, as shown in Figure 4. It is understood that
   GMPLS signaling is implemented in the IP and optical domains, using
   suitably enhanced RSVP-TE or  CR-LDP protocols. But the semantics of
   services within the optical internetwork may be different from that
   in the IP network. As an example, the protection services offered in
   the optical internetwork may be different from the end-to-end
   protection services offered by the IP network. Another example is
   with regard to bandwidth. While the IP network may offer a continuum
   of bandwidths, the optical internetwork will offer only discrete
   bandwidths. Thus, the signaling attributes and services are defined
   independently for IP and optical domains. The routers at the edge of
   the optical internetwork must therefore identify service boundaries
   and perform suitable translations in the signaling messages crossing
   the IP-optical boundary. This may still occur even though the
   signaling control plane in both networks are GMPLS-based and there
   is tighter coupling of the control plane as compared to the domain
   services model.


                        Service Boundary         Service Boundary

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 20
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


                              |                       |
   IP Layer GMPLS Signaling   | Optical Layer GMPLS   | IP Layer GMPLS
                              |                       |
      +--------+  +--------+  |  +-------+  +-------+ |  +--------+
      |        |  |        |  |  |       |  |       | |  |        |
      | IP LSR +--+ IP LSR +--+--+Optical+--+Optical+-+--+ IP LSR +---
      |        |  |        |  |  |  LSR  |  |  LSR  | |  |        |
      +-----+--+  +---+----+  |  +-----+-+  +---+---+ |  +--------+

                     Common Address Space, Service Translation


               Figure 4: Unified Services Signaling Model


   Thus, as illustrated in Figure 4, the signaling in the case of
   unified services is actually multi-layered. The layering is based on
   the technology and functionality. As an example, the specific
   adaptations of GMPLS signaling for SONET layer (whose functionality
   is transport) are described in [12].

5.4  End-to-End Protection Models

   Suppose an LSP is established from an ingress IP router to an egress
   router across an ingress IP network, a transit optical internetwork
   and an egress IP network. If this LSP is to be afforded protection
   in the IP layer, how is the service coordinated between the IP and
   optical layers?

   Under this scenario, there are two approaches to end-to-end
   protection:

5.4.1 Segment-Wise Protection

   The protection services in the IP layer could utilize optical layer
   protection services for the LSP segment that traverses the optical
   internetwork. Thus, the end-to-end LSP would be treated as a
   concatenation of three LSP segments from the protection point of
   view: a segment in the ingress IP network, a segment in the optical
   internetwork and a segment in the egress IP network. The protection
   services at the IP layer for an end-to-end LSP must be mapped onto
   suitable protection services offered by the optical internetwork.
   Suppose that 1+1 protection is offered to LSPs at the IP layer,
   i.e., each protected LSP has a pre-established hot stand-by in a 1+1
   or 1:1 configuration. In case of a failure of the primary LSP,
   traffic can be immediately switched to the stand-by. This type of
   protection can be realized end-to-end as follows. With reference to
   Figure 5, let an LSP originate at (ingress) router interface A and
   terminate at (egress) router interface F. Under the first protection
   option, a primary path for the LSP must be established first. Let
   this path be as shown in   Figure 5, traversing router interface B
   in the ingress network, optical ports C (ingress) and D (egress),
   and router interface E in the egress network. Next, 1+1 protection

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 21
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   is realized separately in each network by establishing a protection
   path between points A and B, C and D and E and F. Furthermore, the
   segments B-C and D-E must themselves be 1+1 protected, using drop-
   side protection. For the segment between C and D, the optical
   internetwork must offer a 1+1 service similar to that offered in the
   IP networks.








      +----------------+    +------------------+    +---------------+
      |                |    |                  |    |               |
      A Ingress IP Net B----C Optical Internet D----E Egress IP Net F
      |                |    |                  |    |               |
      +----------------+    +------------------+    +---------------+

                  Figure 5: End-to-End Protection Example

5.4.2 Single-Layer Protection

   Under this model, the protection services in the IP layer do not
   rely on any protection services offered in the optical internetwork.
   Thus, with reference to Figure 5, two SRLG-disjoint LSPs are
   established between A and F. The corresponding segments in the
   optical internetwork are treated as independent lightpaths in the
   optical internetwork. These lightpaths may be unprotected in the
   optical internetwork.

5.4.3 Differences

   A distinction between these two choices is as follows. Under the
   first choice, the optical internetwork is actively involved in end-
   to-end protection, whereas under the second choice, any protection
   service offered in the optical internetwork is not utilized directly
   by client IP network. Also, under the first choice, the protection
   in the optical internetwork may apply collectively to a number of IP
   LSPs. That is, with reference to Figure 5, many LSPs may be
   aggregated into a single lightpath between C and D. The optical
   internetwork protection may then be applied to all of them at once
   leading to some gain in scalability. Under the second choice, each
   IP LSP must be separately protected. Finally, the first choice
   allows different restoration signaling to be implemented in the IP
   and optical internetwork. These restoration protocols are "patched
   up" at the service boundaries to realize end-to-end protection. A
   further advantage of this is that restoration is entirely contained
   within the network where the failure occurs, thereby improving the
   restoration latency, and perhaps network stability as a fault within
   an optical domain is contained and corrected within the domain. For
   instance, if there is a failure in the optical internetwork, optical

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 22
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   network protocols restore the affected internal segments.  Under the
   second choice, restoration signaling is always end-to-end between IP
   routers, essentially by-passing the optical internetwork. A result
   of this is that restoration latency could be higher.  In addition,
   restoration protocols in the IP layer must run transparently over
   the optical internetwork in the overlay mode. IP based recovery
   techniques may however be more resource efficient, as it may be
   possible to convey traffic through the redundant capacity under
   fault-free scenarios. In particular, it may be possible to utilize
   classification, scheduling, and concepts of forwarding equivalence
   class  to route lower class traffic over protect facilities and then
   possibly preempt them to make way for high priority traffic when
   faults occur.


6. IP-based Optical Control Plane Issues

   Provisioning and restoring lightpaths end-to-end between IP networks
   requires protocol and signaling support within optical sub-networks,
   and across the INNI and ENNI. In this regard, a distinction is made
   between control procedures within an optical sub-network (Figure 1),
   between sub-networks, and between networks. The general guideline
   followed in this framework is to separate these cases, and allow the
   possibility that different control procedures are followed inside
   different sub-networks, while a common set of procedures are
   followed across sub-networks and networks.

   The control plane procedures within a single vendor sub-network need
   not be defined since these can be proprietary. Clearly, it is
   possible to follow the same control procedures inside a sub-network
   and across sub-networks. But this is simply a recommendation within
   this framework document, rather than an imperative requirement.
   Thus, in the following, signaling and routing across sub-networks is
   considered first, followed by a discussion of similar issues across
   networks.


6.1  Addressing

   For interoperability across optical sub-networks using an IP-centric
   control plane, one of the fundamental issues is that of addressing.
   What entities should be identifiable from a signaling and routing
   point of view? How should they be addressed? This section presents
   some high level guidelines on this issue.

   Identifiable entities in optical networks include OXCs, optical
   links, optical channels and sub-channels, Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs), etc. An issue here is how granular the identification
   should be as far as the establishment of optical trails are
   concerned. The scheme for identification must accommodate the
   specification of the termination points in the optical network with
   adequate granularity when establishing optical trails. For instance,
   an OXC could have many ports, each of which may in turn terminate

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 23
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   many optical channels, each of which contain many sub-channels etc.
   It is perhaps not reasonable to assume that every sub-channel or
   channel termination, or even OXC ports could be assigned a unique IP
   address. Also, the routing of an optical trail within the network
   does not depend on the precise termination point information, but
   rather only on the terminating OXC.   Thus, finer granularity
   identification of termination points is of relevance only to the
   terminating OXC and not to intermediate OXCs (of course, resource
   allocation at each intermediate point would depend on the
   granularity of resources requested). This suggests an identification
   scheme whereby OXCs are identified by a unique IP address and a
   "selector" identifies further fine-grain information of relevance at
   an OXC. This, of course, does not preclude the identification of
   these termination points directly with IP addresses(with a null
   selector). The selector can be formatted to have adequate number of
   bits and a structure that expresses port, channel, sub-channel, etc,
   identification.

   Within the optical network, the establishment of trail segments
   between adjacent OXCs require the identification of specific port,
   channel, sub-channel, etc. With a GMPLS control plane, a label
   serves this function. The structure of the label must be such that
   it can encode the required information [12].

   Another entity that must be identified is the SRLG [13]. An
   SRLG is an identifier assigned to a group of optical links that
   share a physical resource. For instance, all optical channels routed
   over the same fiber could belong to the same SRLG. Similarly, all
   fibers routed over a conduit could belong to the same SRLG. The
   notable characteristic of SRLGs is that a given link could belong to
   more than   one SRLG, and two links belonging to a given SRLG may
   individually belong to two other SRLGs. This is illustrated in
   Figure 6. Here, the   links 1,2,3 and 4 may belong to SRLG 1, links
   1,2 and 3 could belong to SRLG 2 and link 4 could belong to SRLG 3.
   Similarly, links 5 and 6 could belong to SRLG 1, and links 7 and 8
   could belong to SRLG 4. (In this example, the same SRLG, i.e., 1,
   contains links from two different adjacencies).

   While the classification of physical resources into SRLGs is a
   manual operation, the assignment of unique identifiers to these
   SRLGs    within an optical network is essential to ensure correct
   SRLG-disjoint path computation for protection. SRLGs could be
   identified with a flat identifier (e.g., 32 bit integer).

   Finally, optical links between adjacent OXCs may be bundled for
   advertisement into a link state protocol [14]. A bundled interface
   may be numbered or unnumbered. In either case, the component links
   within the bundle must be identifiable. In concert with SRLG
   identification, this information is necessary for correct path
   computation.


6.2  Neighbor Discovery

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 24
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt



   Routing within the optical network relies on knowledge of network
   topology and resource availability. This information may be gathered
   and used by a centralized system, or by a distributed link state
   routing protocol. In either case, the first step towards network-
   wide link state determination is the discovery of the status of
   local links to all neighbors by each OXC.  Specifically, each OXC
   must determine the up/down status of each optical link, the
   bandwidth and other parameters of the link, and the identity of the
   remote end of the link (e.g., remote port number). The last piece of
   information is used to specify an appropriate label when signaling
   for lightpath provisioning. The determination of these parameters
   could be based on a combination of manual configuration and an
   automated protocol running between adjacent OXCs. The
   characteristics of such a protocol would depend on the type of OXCs
   that are adjacent (e.g., transparent or opaque).

   Neighbor discovery would typically require in-band communication on
   the bearer channels to determine local connectivity and link status.
   In the case of opaque OXCs with SONET termination, one instance of a
   neighbor discovery protocol (e.g., LMP [2]) would run on each OXC
   port, communicating with the corresponding protocol instance at the
   neighboring OXC. The protocol would utilize the SONET overhead bytes
   to transmit the (configured) local attributes periodically to the
   neighbor. Thus, two neighboring switches can automatically determine
   the identities of each other and the local connectivity, and also
   keep track of the up/down status of local links. Neighbor discovery
   with transparent OXCs is described in [2].



       +--------------+          +------------+         +------------+
       |              +-1:OC48---+            +-5:OC192-+            |
       |              +-2:OC48---+            +-6:OC192-+            |
       |    OXC1      +-3:OC48---+     OXC2   +-7:OC48--+     OXC3   |
       |              +-4:OC192--+            +-8:OC48--+            |
       |              |          |            |  +------+            |
       +--------------+          +----+-+-----+  | +----+------+-----+
                                      | |        | |          |
                                      | |        | |          |
       +--------------+               | |        | |          |
       |              |          +----+-+-----+  | |   +------+-----+
       |              +----------+            +--+ |   |            |
       |     OXC4     +----------+            +----+   |            |
       |              +----------+    OXC5    +--------+     OXC6   |
       |              |          |            +--------+            |
       +--------------+          |            |        |            |
                                 +------+-----+        +------+-----+

                Figure 6: Mesh Optical Network with SRLGs




                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 25
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


6.3  Topology Discovery

   Topology discovery is the procedure by which the topology and
   resource state of all the links in a network are determined. This
   procedure may be done as part of a link state routing protocol
   (e.g., OSPF, ISIS), or it can be done via the management plane (in
   the case of centralized path computation). The implementation of a
   link state protocol within a network (i.e., across sub-network
   boundaries) means that the same protocol runs in OXCs in every sub-
   network. If this assumption does not hold then interworking of
   routing between sub-networks is required. This is similar to inter-
   network routing discussed in Section 6.7. The focus in the following
   is therefore on standardized link state routing.

   In general, most of the link state routing functionality is
   maintained when applied to optical networks. However, the
   representation of optical links, as well as some link parameters,
   are changed in this setting. Specifically,

   o The link state information may consist of link bundles [14].
     Each link bundle is represented as an abstract link in the network
     topology. Different bundling representations are possible. For
     instance, the parameters of the abstract link may include the
     number, bandwidth and the type of optical links contained in the
     underlying link bundle [14]. Also, the SRLGs corresponding to each
     optical link in the bundle may be included as a parameter.

   o The link state information should capture restoration-related
     parameters for optical links. Specifically, with shared protection
     (Section 6.5), the link state updates must have information that
     allows the computation of shared protection paths.

   o A single routing adjacency could be maintained between neighbors
     which may have multiple optical links (or even multiple link
     bundles) between them. This reduces the protocol messaging
     overhead.

   o Since link availability information changes dynamically, a
     flexible policy for triggering link state updates based on
     availability thresholds may be implemented. For instance, changes
     in availability of links of a given bandwidth (e.g., OC-48) may
     trigger updates only after the availability figure changes by a
     certain percentage.

   These concepts are relatively well-understood. On the other hand,
   the resource representation models and the topology discovery
   process for hierarchical routing (e.g., OSPF with multiple areas)
   are areas that need further work.

6.4  Protection and Restoration Models

   Automatic restoration of lightpaths is a service offered by optical
   networks. There could be local and end-to-end mechanisms for

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 26
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   restoration of lightpaths within a network (across the INNI). Local
   mechanisms are used to select an alternate link (or network segment)
   between two OXCs across the INNI when a failure affects the primary
   link (or primary network segment) over which the (protected)
   lightpath is routed. Local restoration does not affect the end-to-
   end route of the lightpath. When local restoration is not possible
   (e.g., no alternate link is available between the adjacent OXCs in
   question), end-to-end restoration may be performed. Under this
   scenario this, the affected lightpath may be rerouted over an
   alternate diverse path to circumvent failed resources. For end-to-
   end restoration, alternate paths may be pre-computed to expedite the
   recovery time. End to end restoration may also be mixed with local
   recovery in various ways depending on acceptable tradeoffs between
   utilization of network resources and recovery times.

   End-to-end protection may be based on two types of protection
   schemes; "1 + 1" protection or shared protection. Under 1 + 1
   protection, a back-up path is established for the protected primary
   path along a physically diverse route. Both paths are active and the
   failure along the primary path results in an immediate switch-over
   to the back-up path. Under shared protection, back-up paths
   corresponding to physically diverse primary paths may share the same
   network resources. When a failure affects a primary path, it is
   assumed that the same failure will not affect the other primary
   paths whose back-ups share resources.

   It is possible that different restoration schemes may be implemented
   within optical sub-networks. It is therefore necessary to consider a
   two-level restoration mechanism. Path failures within an optical
   sub-network could be handled using procedures specific to the
   sub-network. If this fails, end-to-end restoration across sub-
   networks could be invoked. The border OXC that is the ingress to a
   sub-network can act as the source for restoration procedures within
   a sub-network. The signaling for invoking end-to-end restoration
   across the INNI is described in Section 6.6.3. The computation of
   the back-up path for end-to-end restoration may be based on various
   criteria. It is assumed that the back-up path is computed by the
   source OXC, and signaled using standard methods.

6.5  Route Computation

   The computation of a primary route for a lightpath within an optical
   network is essentially a constraint-based routing problem. The
   constraint is typically the bandwidth required for the lightpath,
   perhaps along with administrative and policy constraints. The
   objective of path computation could be to minimize the total
   capacity required for routing lightpaths [15].

   Route computation with constraints may be accomplished using a
   number of algorithms [16]. When 1+1 protection is used, a back-up
   path that does not traverse on any link which is part of the same
   SRLG as links in the primary path must be computed. Thus, it is
   essential that the SRLGs in the primary path be known during

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 27
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   alternate path computation, along with the availability of resources
   in links that belong to other SRLGs. This requirement has certain
   implications on optical link bundling. Specifically, a bundled LSA
   must include adequate information such that a remote OXC can
   determine the resource availability under each SRLG that the bundled
   link refers to, and the    relationship between links belonging to
   different SRLGs in the bundle.   For example, considering Figure 3,
   if links 1,2,3 and 4 are bundled together in an LSA, the bundled LSA
   must indicate that there are three   SRLGs which are part of the
   bundle (i.e., 1, 2 and 3), and that links in SRLGs 2 and 3 are also
   part of SRLG 1.

   To encode the SRLG relationships in a link bundle LSA, only links
   which belong to exactly the same set of SRLGs must be bundled
   together. With reference to Figure 3, for example, two bundles can
   be advertised for links between OXC1 and OXC2, with the following
   information:


     Bundle No.     SRLGs    Link Type   Number   Other Info
     ----------     -----    ---------   ------   ----------
       1             1,2       OC-48       3          ---
       2             1,3       OC-192      1          ---

   Assuming that the above information is available for each bundle at
   every node, there are several approaches possible for path
   computation.  For instance,

   1. The primary path can be computed first, and the (exclusive
      or shared) back-up is computed next based on the SRLGs chosen
      for the primary path.  In this regard,

   o    The primary path computation procedure can output a series of
        bundles the path  is routed over. Since a bundle is uniquely
        identified with a set of SRLGs, the alternate path can be
        computed right away based on this knowledge. In this case, if
        the primary path set up does not succeed for lack of resources
        in a chosen bundle, the primary and backup paths must be
        recomputed.

   o    It might be desirable to compute primary paths without choosing
        a specific bundle apriori. That is, resource availability over
        all bundles between a node pair is taken into account rather
        than specific bundle information. In this case, the primary
        path computation procedure would output a series of nodes the
        path traverses.  Each OXC in the path would have the freedom to
        choose the particular bundle to route that segment of the
        primary path. This procedure would increase the chances of
        successfully setting up the primary path when link state
        information is not up to date everywhere. But the specific
        bundle chosen, and hence the SRLGs in the primary path, must be
        captured during primary path set-up, for example, using the
        RSVP-TE Route Record Object [17].  This SRLG information is

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 28
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


        then used for computing the back-up path. The back-up path may
        also be established specifying only which SRLGs to avoid in a
        given segment, rather than which bundles to use. This would
        maximize the chances of establishing the back-up path.

    2. The primary path and the back-up path are computed together in
       one step, for example, using Suurbaale's algorithm [18]. In this
       case, the paths must be computed using specific bundle
       information.

    To summarize, it is essential to capture sufficient information in
    link bundle LSAs to accommodate different path computation
    procedures    and to maximize the chances of successful path
    establishment. Depending on the path computation procedure used,
    the type of support needed during path establishment (e.g., the
    recording of link group or SRLG information during path
    establishment) may differ.

   When shared protection is used, the route computation algorithm must
   take into account the possibility of sharing links among multiple
   back-up paths. Under shared protection, the back-up paths
   corresponding to SRLG-disjoint primary paths can be assigned the
   same  links. The assumption here is that since the primary paths are
   not routed over links that have the same SRLG, a given failure will
   affect   only one of them. Furthermore, it is assumed that multiple
   failure events affecting links belonging to more than one SRLG will
   not occur    concurrently. Unlike the case of 1+1 protection, the
   back-up paths are not established apriori. Rather, a failure event
   triggers the establishment of a single back-up path corresponding to
   the affected primary path.

   The distributed implementation of route computation for shared back-
   up paths require knowledge about the routing of all primary and
   back-up paths at every node. This raises scalability concerns. For
   this reason, it may be practical to consider the centralization of
   the route computation algorithm in a route server that has complete
   knowledge of the link state and path routes. Heuristics for fully
   distributed route computation without complete knowledge of path
   routes are to be determined. Path computation for restoration is
   further described in [13].

6.6  Signaling Issues

   Signaling within an optical network for lightpath provisioning
   is a relatively simple operation if a standard procedure is
   implemented within all sub-networks. Otherwise, proprietary
   signaling may be implemented within sub-networks, but converted back
   to standard signaling across the INNI. This is similar to signaling
   across the ENNI, as described in Section 6.7. In the former case,
   signaling messages may carry strict explicit route information,
   while in the latter case the route information  should be loose, at
   the level of abstraction of sub-networks. Once a route is determined
   for a lightpath, each OXC along the path must appropriately

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 29
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   configure their cross-connects in a coordinated fashion. This
   coordination is conceptually analogous to selecting incoming and
   outgoing labels in a label-switched environment. Thus, protocols
   like RSVP-TE [11] may be adapted and used across the INNI for this
   purpose. The adaptation of IP-based signaling protocols must take
   into account a number of peculiar attributes of optical networks.

6.6.1 Bi-Directional Lightpath Establishment

   Lightpaths are typically bi-directional. That is, the output port
   selected at an OXC for the forward direction is also the input port
   for the reverse direction of the path. Since signaling for optical
   paths may be autonomously initiated by different nodes, it is
   possible   that two path set-up attempts are in progress at the same
   time. Specifically, while setting up an optical path, an OXC A may
   select output port i which is connected to input port j of the
   "next" OXC B.    Concurrently, OXC B may select output port j for
   setting up a different optical path, where the "next" OXC is A. This
   results in a "collision". Similarly, when WDM functionality is built
   into OXCs, a collision occurs when adjacent OXCs choose directly
   connected output ports and the same wavelength for two different
   optical paths. There are two ways to deal with such collisions.
   First, collisions may be detected and the involved paths may be torn
   down and re-established. Or, collisions may be avoided altogether.


6.6.2  Failure Recovery

   The impact of transient partial failures must be minimized in an
   optical network. Specifically, optical paths that are not directly
   affected by a failure must not be torn down due to the failure. For
   example, the control processor in an OXC may fail, affecting
   signaling   and other internodal control communication. Similarly,
   the control channel between OXCs may be affected temporarily by a
   failure. These failure may not affect already established optical
   paths passing through the OXC fabric. The detection of such failures
   by adjacent nodes, for example, through a keepalive mechanism
   between signaling peers, must not result in these optical paths
   being torn down.

   It is likely that when the above failures occur, a backup processor
   or a backup control channel will be activated. The signaling
   protocol must be designed such that it is resilient to transient
   failures. During failure recovery, it is desirable to recover local
   state at the concerned OXC with least disruption to existing optical
   paths.

6.6.3 Restoration

   Signaling for restoration has two distict phases. There is a
   reservation phase in which capacity for the protection path is
   established. Then, there is an activation phase in which the
   back-up path is actually put in service. The former phase typically

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 30
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   is not subject to strict time constraints, while the latter is.

   Signaling to establish a "1+1" back-up path is relatively straight-
   forward. This signaling is very similar to signaling used for
   establishing the primary path. Signaling to establish a shared back-
   up path is a little bit different. Here, each OXC must understand
   which back-up paths can share resources among themselves. The
   signaling message must itself indicate shared reservation. The
   sharing rule is as described in Section 6.4: back-up paths
   corresponding to physically diverse primary paths may share the same
   network resources. It may therefore be necessary for the signaling
   message to carry adequate information that allows an OXC to verify
   that appropriateness of having a set of back-up paths sharing
   certain.

   Under both 1+1 and shared protection, the activation phase has two
   parts: propagation of failure information to the source OXC from the
   point of failure, and activation of the back-up path. The signaling
   for these two phases must be very fast in order to realize response
   times in the order of tens of milliseconds. When optical links are
   SONET-based, in-band signals may be used, resulting in expedited
   response.   With out-of-band control, it may be necessary to
   consider fast signaling over the control channel using very short IP
   packets and prioritized processing. While it is possible to use RSVP
   or CR-LDP for activating protection paths, these protocols do not
   provide any means to give priority to restoration signaling as
   opposed to signaling for provisioning. For instance, it is possible
   for a restoration-related RSVP message to be queued behind a number
   of provisioning messages thereby delaying restoration. It may
   therefore be necessary to develop a notion of prioritization for
   restoration signaling and incorporate appropriate mechanisms into
   existing signaling protocols to achieve this. Alternatively, a new
   signaling mechanism may be developed exclusively for activating
   protection paths during restoration.


6.7  Optical Internetworking

   Within an optical internetwork, it must be possible to dynamically
   provision and restore lightpaths across optical networks. Therefore:

   o A standard scheme for uniquely identifying lightpath end-points in
     different networks is required.

   o A protocol is required for determining reachability of end-points
     across networks.

   o A standard signaling protocol is required for provisioning
     lightpaths across networks.

   o A standard procedure is required for the restoration of lightpaths
     across networks.


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 31
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   o Support for policies that affect the flow of control information
   across networks will be required.

   The IP-centric control architecture for optical networks can be
   extended to satisfy the functional requirements of optical
   internetworking. Routing and signaling interaction between optical
   networks can be standardized across the ENNI (Figure 1). The
   functionality provided across ENNI is as follows.

6.7.1 Neighbor Discovery

   Neighbor discovery procedure, as described in Section 6.2, can be
   used for this. Indeed, a single protocol should be standardized for
   neighbor discovery within and across networks.


6.7.2 Addressing and Routing Model

   The addressing mechanisms described in Section 6.1 can be used to
   identify OXCs, ports, channels and sub-channels in each network.
   It is essential that the OXC IP addresses are unique within the
   internetwork.

   Provisioning an end-to-end lightpath across multiple networks
   involves the establishment of path segments in each network
   sequentially. Thus, a path segment is established from the source
   OXC to a border OXC in the source network. From this border OXC,
   signaling across NNI is used to establish a path segment to a border
   OXC in the next network. Provisioning then continues in the next
   network and so on until the destination OXC is reached. The usage of
   protocols like BGP for this purpose need to be explored.

6.7.3 Restoration

   Local restoration across the ENNI is similar to that across INNI
   described in Section 6.6.3. End-to-end restoration across networks
   is likely to be either of the 1+1 type, or segmented within each
   network, as described in Section 6.4.

7. Other Issues

7.1   WDM and TDM in the Same Network

   A practical assumption would be that if SONET (or some other TDM
   mechanism that is capable partitioning the bandwidth of a
   wavelength) is used, then TDM is leveraged as an additional method
   to differentiate between "flows."  In such cases, wavelengths and
   time intervals (sub-channels) within a wavelength become analogous
   to labels (as noted in [1]) which can be used to make switching
   decisions. This would be somewhat akin to using VPI (e.g.,
   wavelength) and VCI (e.g., TDM sub-channel) in ATM networks. More
   generally, this will be akin to label stacking and to LSP nesting


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 32
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   within the context of Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching [1]. GMPLS
   signaling [4] supports this type of multiplexing.

7.2   Wavelength Conversion

   Some form of wavelength conversion may exist at some switching
   elements. This however may not be the case in some pure optical
   switching elements.  A switching element is essentially anything
   more sophisticated than a simple repeater, that is capable of
   switching and converting a wavelength Lambda(k) from an input port
   to a wavelength  Lambda(l) on an output port.  In this display, it
   is not necessarily the case that Lambda(k) = Lambda(l), nor is it
   necessarily the case that the data carried on Lambda(k) is switched
   through the device without being examined or modified.

   It is not necessary to have a wavelength converter at every
   switching element.  A number of studies have attempted to address
   the issue of the value of wavelength conversion in an optical
   network. Such studies typically use the blocking probability (the
   probability that a lightpath cannot be established because the
   requisite wavelengths are not available) as a metric to adjudicate
   the effectiveness of wavelength conversion.  The IP over optical
   architecture must take into account hybrid networks with some OXCs
   capable of wavelength conversion and others incapable of this. The
   GMPLS "label set" mechanism [4] supports the selection of the same
   label (i.e., wavelength) across an NNI.


7.3   Service Provider Peering Points

   There are proposed inter-network interconnect models which allow
   certain types of peering relationships to occur at the optical
   layer. This is consistent with the need to support optical layer
   services independent of higher layers payloads. In the context of IP
   over optical networks, peering relationships between different trust
   domains will eventually have to occur at the IP layer, on IP routing
   elements, even though non-IP paths may exist between the peering
   routers.

7.4   Rate of Lightpath Set-Up

   Dynamic establishment of optical channel trails and lightpaths is
   quite desirable in IP over optical networks, especially when such
   instantiations are driven by a stable traffic engineering control
   system, or in response to authenticated and authorized requests from
   clients.

   However, there are many proposals suggesting the use of dynamic,
   data-driven shortcut-lightpath setups in IP over optical networks.
   The arguments put forth in such proposals are quite reminiscent of
   similar discussions regarding ATM deployment in the core of IP
   networks.  Deployment of highly dynamic data driven shortcuts within
   core networks has not been widely adopted by carriers and ISPs for a

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 33
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   number   of reasons: possible CPU overhead in core network elements,
   complexity   of proposed solutions, stability concerns, and lack of
   true economic drivers for this type of service.  This document
   assumes that this paradigm will not change and that highly dynamic,
   data-driven shortcut lightpath setups are for future investigation.
   Instead, the optical channel trails and lightpaths that are expected
   to be widely used at the initial phases in the evolution of IP over
   optical networks will include the following:

   o Dynamic connections for control plane traffic and default path
     routed data traffic,

   o Establishment and re-arrangement of arbitrary virtual topologies
     over rings and other physical layer topologies.

   o Use of stable traffic engineering control systems to engineer
     lightpath connections to enhance network performance, either for
     explicit demand based QoS reasons or for load balancing).

   Other issues surrounding dynamic connection setup within the core
   center around  resource usage at the edge of the optical domain.
   One potential issue pertains to the number of flows that can be
   processed by an ingress or egress network element either because of
   aggregate bandwidth limitations or because of a limitation on the
   number of flows (e.g., lightpaths) that can be processed
   concurrently.

   Another possible short term reason for dynamic shortcut lightpath
   setup would be to quickly pre-provision paths based on some criteria
   (e.g., a corporate executive wants a high bandwidth reliable
   connection, etc.).  In this scenario, a set of paths can be pre-
   provisioned, but not actually instantiated until the customer
   initiates an authenticated and authorized setup requests, which is
   consistent with existing agreements between the provider and the
   customer.   In a sense, the
   provider may have already agreed to supply this service, but will
   only instantiate it by setting up a lightpath when the customer
   submits an explicit request.

7.5   Distributed vs. Centralized Provisioning

   This document has mainly dealt with a distributed model for
   lightpath provisioning, in which all nodes maintain a synchronized
   topology database, and advertise topology state information to
   maintain and refresh the database. A constraint-based routing entity
   in each node then uses the information in the topology database and
   other relevant details to compute appropriate paths through the
   optical domain. Once a path is computed, a signaling protocol (e.g.,
   [11]) is used to instantiate the lightpath.

   Another provisioning model is to have a centralized server which has
   complete knowledge of the physical topology, the available
   wavelengths, and where applicable, relevant time domain information.

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 34
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   A corresponding client will reside on each network element that can
   source or sink a lightpath.  The source client would query the
   server in order to set up a lightpath from the source to the
   destination.  The server would then check to see if such a lightpath
   can be established based on prevailing conditions. Furthermore,
   depending on the specifics of the model, the server may either setup
   the lightpath on behalf of the client or provide the necessary
   information to the client or to some other entity to allow the
   lightpath to be instantiated.

   Centralization aids in implementing complex capacity optimization
   schemes, and may be the near-term provisioning solution in optical
   networks with interconnected multi-vendor optical sub-networks. In
   the long term, however, the distributed solution with centralization
   of some control procedures (e.g., traffic engineering) is likely to
   be the approach followed.




7.6   Optical Networks with Additional Configurable Components

   Thus far, this memo has focused mainly on IP over optical networks
   where the cross-connect is the basic dynamically re-configurable
   device in the optical network. Recently, as a consequence of
   technology evolution, various types of re-configurable optical
   components are now available, including tunable lasers, tunable
   filters, etc. Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to
   parameterize the characteristics of these components and advertise
   them  within the control plane. This aspect is left for further
   study.

7.7   Optical Networks with Limited Wavelength Conversion Capability

   At the time of the writing of this document, the majority of optical
   networks being deployed are "opaque".  In this context the term
   opaque means that each link is optically isolated by transponders
   doing optical-electrical-optical conversions. Such conversions have
   the added benefit of permitting 3R regeneration.  The 3Rs refer to
   re-power, signal retiming and reshaping. Unfortunately, this
   regeneration requires that the underlying optical equipment be aware
   of both the bit rate and frame format of the carried signal. These
   transponders are quite expensive and their lack of transparency
   constrains the rapid introduction of new services [19].  Thus there
   are strong motivators to introduce "domains of transparency" wherein
   all-optical networking equipment would transport data unfettered by
   these drawbacks.

   Thus, the issue of IP over optical networking in all optical sub-
   networks, and sub-networks with limited wavelength conversion
   capability merits special attention.  In such networks, transmission
   impairments resulting from the peculiar characteristics of optical
   communications complicate the process of path selection. These

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 35
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   transmission impairments include loss, noise (due primarily to
   amplifier spontaneous emission -- ASE), dispersion (chromatic
   dispersion and polarization mode dispersion), cross-talk, and non-
   linear effects. In such networks, the feasibility of a path between
   two nodes is no longer simply a function of topology and resource
   availability but will also depend on the accumulation of impairments
   along the path. If the impairment accumulation is excessive, the
   optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR) and hence the electrical bit
   error rate (BER) at the destination node may exceed prescribed
   thresholds, making the resultant optical channel unusable for data
   communication.  The challenge in the development of IP-based control
   plane for optical networks is to abstract these peculiar
   characteristics of the optical layer [19] in a generic fashion, so
   that they can be used for path computation.

8.  Evolution Path for IP over Optical Architecture

   The architectural models described in Section 5 imply a certain
   degree of implementation complexity. Specifically, the overlay
   model was described as the least complex for near term deployment
   and the peer model the most complex. Nevertheless, each model has
   certain advantages and this raises the question as to the evolution
   path for IP over optical network architectures.

   The evolution approach recommended in this framework is the
   definition of capability sets that start with simpler functionality
   in the beginning and include more complex functionality later. In
   this regard, it is realistic to expect that initial IP over optical
   deployments will be based on the domain services model (with overlay
   interconnection), with no routing exchange between the IP and
   optical domains. Under this model, direct signaling between IP
   routers and optical networks is likely to be triggered by offline
   traffic engineering decisions. The next step in the evolution of IP-
   optical interaction is the introduction of reachability information
   exchange between the two domains. This would potentially allow
   lightpaths to be established as part of end-to-end LSP set-up. The
   final phase is the support for the full peer model with more
   sophisticated routing interaction between IP and optical domains.

   Using a common signaling framework (based on GMPLS) from the
   beginning facilitates this type of evolution. In this evolution, the
   signaling capability and semantics at the IP-optical boundary would
   become more sophisticated, but the basic structure of signaling
   would remain. This would allow incremental developments as the
   interconnection model becomes more sophisticated, rather than
   complete re-development of signaling capabilities.

   From a routing point of view, the use of Network Management Systems
   (NMS) for static connection management is prevalent in legacy
   optical networks. Going forward, it can be expected that connection
   routing using the control plane will be gradually introduced and
   integrated into operational infrastructures. The introduction of
   routing capabilities can be expected to occur in a phased approach.

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 36
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   It is likely that in the first phase, service providers will either
   upgrade existing local element management (EMS) software with
   additional control plane capabilities (and perhaps the hardware as
   well), or upgrade the NMS software in order to introduce some degree
   of automation within each optical subnetwork. For this reason, it
   may be desirable to partition the network into subnetworks and
   introduce IGP interoperability within each subnetwork (i.e. at the
   I-NNI level), and employ either static or signaled interoperability
   between subnetworks.  Consequently, it can be envisioned that the
   first phase in the evolution towards network level control plane
   interoperability in IP over Optical networks will be organized
   around a system of optical subnetworks which are interconnected
   statically (or dynamically in a signaled configuration). During this
   phase, an overlay interconnection model will be used between the
   optical network itself and external IP and MPLS routers (as
   described in Section 5.2.3).

   Progressing with this phased approach to IPO routing
   interoperabibility evolution, the next level of integration will be
   achieved when a single carrier provides dynamic optical routing
   interoperability between subnetworks and between domains. In order
   to become completely independent of the network switching capability
   within subnetworks and across domains, routing information exchange
   may need to be enabled at the UNI level. This would constitute a
   significant evolution: even if the routing instances are kept
   separate and independent, it would still be possible to dynamicallhy
   exchange reachability and other types of routing information.
   Another more sophisticated step during this phase is to introduce
   dynamic routing at the E-NNI level. This means that any neighboring
   networks (independent of internal switching capability) would be
   capable of exchanging routing information with peers across the E-
   NNI.


   Another alternative would be for private networks to bypass these
   intermediate steps and directly consider an integrated routing model
   from the onset. This direct evolution strategy is realistic, but is
   more likely to occur in operational contexts where both the IP (or
   MPLS) and optical networks are built simultaneously, using equipment
   from a single source or from multiple sources that are closely
   affiliated.  In any case, due to the current lack of operational
   experience in managing this degree of control plane interaction in a
   heterogeneous network (these issues may exist even if the hardware
   and software originate from the same vendor), an augmented model is
   likely to be the most viable initial option. Alternatively, a very
   modular or hierarchical peer model may be contemplated. There may be
   other challenges (not just of a technical, but also administrative
   and even political issues) that may need to be resolved in order to
   achieve full a peer model at the routing level in a multi-technology
   and multi-vendor environment. Ultimately, the main technical
   improvement would likely arise from efficiencies derived from the
   integration of traffic-engineering capabilities in the dynamic
   inter-domain routing environments.

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 37
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt



9. Security Considerations

   The architectural framework described in this document requires a
   number of different protocol mechanisms for its realization.
   Specifically, the role of neighbor discovery, routing, and signaling
   protocols were highlighted in previous sections. The general
   security issues that arise with these protocols include:

   o    The authentication of entities exchanging information
        (e.g., signaling, routing, or link management) across a control
        interface;

   o    Ensuring the integrity of the information exchanged across the
        interface;

   o    Protection of the control mechanisms from intrusions and other
   modes of outside interference.


   Because optical connections may carry high volumes of traffic and
   are generally quite expensive, mechanisms are required to safeguard
   optical networks against intrusions and unauthorized utilization of
   network resources.

   In addition to the security aspects relating to the control plane,
   the data plane must also be protected from external interference.

   An important consideration in optical networks is the separation of
   control channels from data channels. This decoupling implies that
   the state of the bearer channels carrying user traffic cannot be
   inferred from the state of the control channels. Similarly, the
   state of the control channels cannot be inferred from the state of
   the data channels.  The potential security implications of this
   decoupling should be taken into account in the design of pertinent
   control protocols and in the operation of IPO networks.

   Another issue in IPO networks concerns the fact that the underlying
   optical network elements may be invisible to IP client nodes,
   especially in the overlay model. This means that traditional IP
   tools such as traceroute cannot be used by client IP nodes to detect
   attacks within the optical domain.

   For the aforementioned reasons, the output of the routing protocol
   security (RPSEC) efforts within the IETF should be considered in the
   design of control protocols for optical networks.

   In Section 2, the concept of a trust domain was defined as a network
   under a single technical administration in which adequate security
   measures are established to prevent unauthorized intrusion from
   outside the domain.  It should be strongly noted that within a trust
   domain, any subverted node can send control messages which can
   compromise the entire network.

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 38
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt




9.1 General security aspects

   Communication protocols usually require two main security
   mechanisms:  authentication and confidentiality. Authentication
   mechanisms ensure data origin verification and message integrity so
   that intrusions and unauthorized operations can be detected and
   mitigated. For example, with reference to Figure 1, message
   authentication can prevent a malicious IP client from mounting a
   denial of service attack against the optical network by invoking an
   excessive number of connection creation requests across the UNI
   interface.

   Confidentiality of signaling messages is also desirable, especially
   in scenarios where message attributes between communicating entities
   include sensitive or private information. Examples of such
   attributes include account numbers, contract identification
   information, and similar types of private data.

   The case of equipment that are not co-located presents increased
   security threats. In such scenarios, the communicating entities
   engaged in protocol message transactions may be connected over an
   external network. Generally, the external network may be outside the
   span of control of the optical network (or client IP network)
   administrators. As a result, the protocol messages may be subject to
   increased security threats, such as address spoofing, eavesdropping,
   and intrusion. To mitigate such threats, appropriate security
   mechanisms must be employed to protect the control channels and
   associated signaling and routing messages.

   Requests for optical connections from client networks must also be
   filtered using appropriate policies to protect against security
   infringements and excess resource consumption. Additionally, there
   may be a need for confidentiality of SRLGs in some circumstances.

   Optical networks may also be subject to subtle forms of denial of
   service attacks. An example of this would be requests for optical
   connections with explicit routes that induce a high degree of
   blocking for subsequent requests. This aspect might require some
   global coordination of resource allocation.

   Another related form of subtle denial of service attack could occur
   when improbable optical paths are requested (i.e., paths within the
   network for which resources are insufficiently provisioned). Such
   requests for improbable paths may consume ports on optical switching
   elements within the network resulting in denial of service for
   subsequent connection requests.






                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 39
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


9.2 Security Considerations for Protocol Mechanisms

   The security requirements for IP-centric control protocols employed
   in the control plane of optical networks would depend on the
   specific characteristics of the protocols and the security risks
   that exist in a particular operational context. Such details
   relating to particular operational contexts are beyond the scope of
   this document and hence are not considered further. Nevertheless, it
   must be stated that such control protocols must take into account
   the issues associated with the separation of control channels from
   data channels in switched optical networks, and the magnitude and
   extent of service interruptions  within the IP domain that could
   result from outages emanating from the optical domain.


10. Summary and Conclusions

   The objective of this document was to define a framework for IP over
   optical networks, considering the service models, and routing and
   signaling issues. There are a diversity of choices for IP-optical
   control interconnection, service models, and protocol mechanisms.
   The approach advocated in this document was to support different
   service models which allow for future enhancements, and define
   complementary signaling and routing mechanisms to enable these
   capabilities. An evolutionary scenario, based on a common signaling
   framework (e.g. based on GMPLS) was suggested, with the capability
   to increase the complexity of interworking functionality as the
   requirements become more sophisticated. A key aspect of this
   evolutionary principle is that the IP-optical control and service
   interaction is first based on the domain services model with overlay
   interconnection that will eventually evolve to support full peer
   interaction.


11. References

   Note: All references are informative:

   1. D. Awduche and Y. Rekhter, , "Multi-Protocol
      Lambda Switching: Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control With
      Optical Crossconnects," IEEE Communications Magazine, March 2001.

   2. J. P. Lang, et. al., "Link Management Protocol," Internet Draft,
      Work in progress.

   3. K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE,"
      Internet Draft, Work in progress.

   4. L. Berger, et. al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional
      Description", RFC 3471.

   5. B. Rajagopalan, "Documentation of IANA Assignments for LDP, RSVP
      and RSVP-TE Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling," RFC 3476.

                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 40
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt



   6. The Optical Interworking Forum, "UNI 1.0 Signaling
      Specification," December, 2001.

   7. K. Kompella et al, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
      MPLS," Internet Draft, Work in Progress.

   8. Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP4)",RFC
      1771, March, 1995.

   9. E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March, 1999.

   10.  P. Ashwood-Smith, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP Signaling
      Functional Description," RFC 3472.

   11.  L. Berger, et. al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP-TE Signaling
      Functional Description", RFC 3473.

   12.  E. Mannie, et. al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET/SDH Control,"
      Internet Draft, Work in Progress.

   13.  B. Doshi, S. Dravida, P. Harshavardhana, et. al, "Optical
      Network Design and Restoration," Bell Labs Technical Journal,
      Jan-March, 1999.

   14.  K. Kompella, et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
      Engineering," Internet Draft, Work in Progress.

   15.  S. Ramamurthy, Z. Bogdanowicz, S. Samieian, et al., "Capacity
      Performance of Dynamic Provisioning in Optical Networks", J. of
      Lightwave Technology, January, 2001.

   16.  E. Crawley, R. Nair, B. Rajagopalan and H. Sandick, "A
      Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet," RFC 2386,
      August, 1998.

   17.  D. Awduche, L. Berger, Der-Hwa Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow, V.
      Srinivasan, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels," RFC
      3209.

   18.  J. Suurballe, "Disjoint Paths in a Network," Networks, vol. 4,
      1974.

   19.  A. Chiu et al., "Impairments and Other Constraints On Optical
      Layer Routing", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.


12. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Zouheir Mansourati (Movaz Networks), Ian
   Duncan (Nortel Networks), Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel), and
   Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium) for their contributions to this


                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 41
                   draft-ietf-ipo-framework-05.txt


   document. The Security Considerations section was revised to reflect
   input from Scott Bradner and Steve Bellovin.



13. Contributors

   Contributors are listed alphabetically.



         Daniel O. Awduche
         MCI
         22001 Loudoun County Parkway
         Ashburn, VA 20147
         Phone: 703-886-1753
         Email: awduche@awduche.com

         Brad Cain
         Cereva Networks
         3 Network Dr.
         Marlborough, MA 01752
         Email: bcain@cereva.com

         Bilel Jamoussi
         Nortel Networks
         600 Tech Park
         Billerica, MA 01821
         Phone: 978-288-4734
         Email: jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com

         James V. Luciani
           Independent Consultant
         PO Box 1010
         Concord, MA 01742
         Email: james_luciani@mindspring.com

         Bala Rajagopalan
         Tellium, Inc.
         2 Crescent Place
         P.O. Box 901
         Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
         Email: braja@tellium.com

         Debanjan Saha
         Email: debanjan@acm.org







                         Expires on 9/13/2003                  Page 42


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