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

Versions: (draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Network Working Group                                       Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft                                      Huawei Technologies

Intended status: Standard Track                        R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: September 1, 2019                                         CTTC





                                                          March 1, 2019


PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment


                      draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17


Abstract

   This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
   Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
   Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
   assignment (RWA) process.  From a path computation perspective,
   wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
   can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
   constraint to optical path computation.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt




Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents


   1. Terminology....................................................3
   2. Requirements Language..........................................3
   3. Introduction...................................................3
   4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6
      4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................7
      4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................9
      4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................9
         4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................12
         4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................14
      4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions................15
         4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion.........................16
         4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion.........................18
   5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................19
      5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV................................19
      5.2. Error Indicator..........................................20
      5.3. NO-PATH Indicator........................................21
   6. Manageability Considerations..................................22
      6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................22
      6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................22
      6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................22
      6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components22
      6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................23



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   7. Security Considerations.......................................23
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................23
      8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object............23
      8.2. WA Object Flag Field.....................................23
      8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................24
      8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......24
      8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values......25
      8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................25
      8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field.....................25
      8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........26
      8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................26
      8.10. New No-Path Reasons.....................................27
      8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values........................27
      8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object.............28
      8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object.............28
      8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
      ..............................................................28
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................29
   10. References...................................................29
      10.1. Normative References....................................29
      10.2. Informative References..................................30
   11. Contributors.................................................32
   Authors' Addresses...............................................33



1. Terminology

   This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
   [RFC5440].

2. Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3. Introduction

   [RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client
   (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs.  Such interactions include
   path computation requests and path computation replies as well as
   notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
   (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering.

   A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request
   and may be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within a
   Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network.  The PCE, itself,
   can be located anywhere within the network, and may be within an
   optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) or
   Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network
   server.

   This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of
   Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched
   Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in
   [RFC6163] and [RFC7449].

   WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is
   performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
   The devices used in WSONs that are able to switch signals based on
   signal wavelength are known as Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). WSONs
   can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical network is
   made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
   wavelength to another, all within the optical domain. On the other
   hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators (Re-
   amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) that are sparsely placed. The
   main function of the 3R regenerators is to convert one optical
   wavelength to another.

   A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
   or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R
   regenerators typically with electronic regenerator and optional
   wavelength conversion. Each transparent segment or path in WSON is
   referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple
   fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for
   each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the
   wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the
   relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical
   paths).











Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   +---+       +-----+       +-----+      +-----+         +-----+
   |   |I1     |     |       |     |      |     |       I2|     |
   |   |o------|     |-------[(3R) ]------|     |--------o|     |
   |   |       |     |       |     |      |     |         |     |
   +---+       +-----+       +-----+      +-----+         +-----+
       (X  LSC)     (LSC  LSC)    (LSC  LSC)     (LSC  X)
        <------->   <------->       <----->     <------->
        <-----------------------><---------------------->
         Transparent Segment         Transparent Segment
       <------------------------------------------------->
                              LSC LSP


   Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments



   Note that two transparent segments within a WSON LSP do not need to
   operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
   capabilities). Two optical channels that share a common fiber link
   cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals
   would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
   multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
   not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
   not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
   wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
   computation process.

   When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
   conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
   a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on
   different links along its route from origin to destination. It is,
   however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due
   to their relatively high cost, while the number of WDM channels that
   can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be
   composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion,
   nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full
   wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an
   additional routing constraint to be considered in all optical path
   computation.

   For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may
   be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent
   segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
   applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP
   at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding
   Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
   For example, X can be Packet Switch Capable (PSC), Time Division
   Multiplexing (TDM), etc.

   This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for
   generic properties such as label, label-set and label assignment
   noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions
   and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per
   [RFC7579].

   The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
   signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in
   [RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
   limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing
   capabilities are used by the mechanisms specified in this document.
   These modulation capabilities contribute not only to optical signal
   quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
   receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
   capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
   constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
   processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward Error
   Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of optical interface class
   (OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the
   optical path across all optical elements.

   This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
   of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical
   impairments.

4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request

   Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
   referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
   the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
   via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
   specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are specified in
   this document are based on this architecture.












Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


                          +----------------------------+
            +-----+       |     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |     |Routing|     |WA|     |
            | PCC |<----->|     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |                            |
            +-----+       |             PCE            |
                          +----------------------------+


               Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture



4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object

   Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
   means:

   (a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE
   allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
   The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.

   (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
   potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.

   Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
   signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.

   Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, a PC
   Request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism used for the
   allocation.

   The format of a PCReq message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the
   Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows:

   <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>

                          [<svec-list>]

                          <request-list>

      Where:

         <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]

         <request>::= <RP>



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


                      <END-POINTS>

                      <WA>

                      [other optional objects...]

   If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
   the END-POINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. The WA Object is
   mandatory in this document. Orderings for the other optional objects
   are irrelevant.

   WA Object-Class is (TBD1) (To be assigned by IANA).

   WA Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the WA object body is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Reserved             |           Flags             |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                            TLVs                             //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            Figure 3 WA Object

   o  Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed
      and ignored on receipt.

   o  Flags (16 bits)

   One flag bit is allocated as follows:











Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


     - M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of
        wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates
        that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is,
        the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means
        of Explicit Label Control for each hop of a computed LSP.
        Otherwise (M bit is set to 0), the label assigned by the PCE
        need not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of
        label set objects in the corresponding response, to allow
        distributed WA. If M is 0, the PCE MUST return a Label Set
        Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response.
        See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
        Label Set Field in a PCRep message.

     All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA is to create a new
     registry to manage the Flag field of the WA object.

   o  TLVs (variable). In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are
     defined. At least one TLV MUST be present.

     - Wavelength Selection TLV: A TLV of type (TBD2) with fixed
        length of 32 bits indicating the wavelength selection. See
        Section 4.2 for details.

     - Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV: A TLV of type (TBD3)
        with variable length indicating wavelength restrictions. See
        Section 4.3 for details.

4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV

   The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
   selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
   to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is
   set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
   used when the M bit is cleared.

   The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
   Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. IANA is to allocate a new TLV
   type, Wavelength Selection TLV type (TBD2).



4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV

   For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
   (PCC) MUST specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. This
   restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the
   tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   maintenance related constraints. Note that if the LSP LSC spans
   different segments, the PCE must have mechanisms to know the
   tunability restrictions of the involved wavelength converters /
   regenerators, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database
   (TED) either via IGP or Network Management System (NMS). Even if the
   PCE knows the tunability of the transmitter, the PCC must be able to
   apply additional constraints to the request.

   The format of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is as
   follows:

   <Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::=

                  (<Action> <Count> <Reserved>

                  <Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)...

   Where

   <Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]

   See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field.

   These fields (i.e., <Action>, <Link Identifiers> and <Wavelength
   Restriction>, etc.) MAY appear together more than once to be able to
   specify multiple actions and their restrictions.


   IANA is to allocate a new TLV type, Wavelength Restriction
   Constraint TLV type (TBD3).

   The TLV data is defined as follows:



    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Action        |    Count      |           Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Link Identifiers Field                      |
   //                          . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Wavelength Restriction Field                   |
   //                        . . . .                              //


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                         . . . .                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Action        |    Count      |           Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Link Identifiers Field                      |
   //                          . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Wavelength Restriction Field                   |
   //                        . . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


          Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding


   o  Action (8 bits):


        o 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link
           identifiers are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a
           separate link that is part of the set.

        o 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a
           range of links.  It contains two link identifiers. The first
           identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
           second identifier indicates the end of the range
           (inclusive). All links with numeric values between the
           bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero
           in either position indicates that there is no bound on the
           corresponding portion of the range.

        o 2-255 - For future use

   IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Action values of the
   Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.

   If PCE receives an unrecognized Action value, the PCE MUST send a
   PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an
   Error-value (Error-value=3). See Section 5.2 for details.







Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional.


   o  Count (8 bits): The number of the link identifiers

   Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all
   links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
   of wavelengths.

   Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the same
   type.

       o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be
          zeroed and ignored on receipt.

       o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which
          restriction is applied. The length is dependent on the link
          format and the Count field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link
          Identifier encoding.

       o Wavelength Restriction: See Section 4.3.2. for the Wavelength
          Restriction Field encoding.


   Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not
   exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier
   types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate
   errors associated with this encoding, a PCEP speaker MUST send a
   PCErr message with Error-Type=TBD8 and Error-value=3. See Section
   5.1 for the details.

4.3.1. Link Identifier Field

   The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329]
   or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].

   <Link Identifier> ::=

               <IPv4 Address> | <IPv6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>



   The encoding of each case is as follows:




Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019



      IPv4 Address Field

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 1     |    Reserved  (24 bits)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv4 address (4 bytes)                                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      IPv6 Address Field

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 2     |    Reserved  (24 bits)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv6 address (16 bytes)                                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv6 address (continued)                                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv6 address (continued)                                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv6 address (continued)                                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Unnumbered Interface ID Address Field

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 3     |    Reserved (24 bits)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        TE Node ID (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Interface ID (32 bits)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       o Type (8 bits): It indicates the type of the link identifier.



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


       o Reserved (24 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be
          zeroed and ignored on receipt.

       o Link Identifier: When Type field is 1, 4-bytes IPv4 address
          is encoded; when Type field is 2, 16-bytes IPv6 address is
          encoded; when Type field is 3, a tuple of 4-bytes TE node
          ID and 4-bytes interface ID is encoded.

   The Type field is extensible and matches to the IANA registry
   created for Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link
   Object Class Type name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-
   parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15. See Section 8.14
   for the request to update the introductory text of the
   aforementioned registry to note that the values have additional
   usage for the Link Identifier Type field.


4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field

   The Wavelength Restriction Field of the Wavelength Restriction
   Constraint TLV is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in
   Section 2.6 in [RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC
   label, defined in [RFC6205].  The Label Set format is repeated here
   for convenience, with the base label internal structure included.
   See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n, as
   well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action.

   0                   1                   2                   3

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Action|    Num Labels         |          Length               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |Grid | C.S   |    Identifier   |              n                |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Additional fields as necessary per action                 |
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Action (4 bits):

            0  - Inclusive List



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


            1  - Exclusive List

            2  - Inclusive Range

            3  - Exclusive Range

            4  - Bitmap Set

   Num Labels (12 bits): It is generally the number of labels. It has a
   specific meaning depending on the action value.

   Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire Wavelength
   Restriction field.

   Identifier (9 bits): The Identifier is always set to 0. If PCC
   receives the value of the identifier other than 0, it will ignore.

   See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional
   field discussion for each action.



4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions

   Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing
   capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE
   MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at
   each interface, e.g. by means of the Traffic Engineering Database
   (TED) either via IGP or Network Management System (NMS).  Moreover,
   a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions to signal
   processing compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link.

   The supported signal processing capabilities considered in the RWA
   Information Model [RFC7446] are:

      o Optical Interface Class List

      o Bit Rate

      o Client Signal

   The Bit Rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the
   BANDWIDTH object.



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   In order to support the Optical Interface Class information and the
   Client Signal information new TLVs are introduced as endpoint-
   restriction in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint:

      o Client Signal TLV

      o Optical Interface Class List TLV

   The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows:

   <endpoint-restriction> ::=
                         <LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list>


   <label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
                                [<label-restriction-list>]

   <label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>|
                           [<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>]
                           [<signal-compatibility-restriction>])
   Where

   <signal-compatibility-restriction> ::=
       [<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal>]

   The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is defined in Section 4.3.

   A new TLV for the Optical Interface Class List TLV (TBD5) is
   defined, and the encoding of the value part of the Optical Interface
   Class List TLV is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].

   A new TLV for the Client Signal Information TLV (TBD6) is defined,
   and the encoding of the value part of the Client Signal Information
   TLV is described in Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].



4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion

   The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal
   processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or
   multi-domain path computation. [RFC5440] defines how Exclude Route
   Object (XRO) subobject is used. In this draft, we add two new XRO
   Signal Processing Exclusion Subobjects.



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   The first XRO subobject type (TBD9) is the Optical Interface Class
   List Field defined as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|  Type=TBD9  |     Length    |   Reserved    | Attribute     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //              Optical Interface Class List                   //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            Figure 5 Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject

   Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Length and Attribute.

   Type (7 bits): The Type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field.
   The TLV Type value (TBD9) is to be assigned by the IANA for the
   Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject Type.

   Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
   ignored on receipt.

   The Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute
   values; the only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0
   (Interface) or 1 (Node).

   The Optical Interface Class List is encoded as described in Section
   4.1 of [RFC7581].

   The second XRO subobject type (TBD10) is the Client Signal
   Information defined as follows:



    0                   1                   2                   3

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|  Type=TBD10 |     Length    |   Reserved    |  Attribute    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                Client Signal Information                    //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


             Figure 6 Client Signal Information XRO Subobject



   Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Length and Attribute.

   Type (7 bits): The Type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field.
   The TLV Type value (TBD10) is to be assigned by the IANA for the
   Client Signal Information XRO Subobject Type.

   Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
   ignored on receipt.

   The Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute
   values; the only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0
   (Interface) or 1 (Node).

   The Client Signal Information is encoded as described in Section 4.2
   of [RFC7581].



   The XRO needs to support the new Signaling Processing Exclusion XRO
   Subobject types:

         Type     XRO Subobject Type

         TBD9     Optical Interface Class List

         TBD10    Client Signal Information



4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion

   Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include
   particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
   handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
   [RFC5440] defines how Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is used.
   In this draft, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion
   Subobjects.

   The IRO needs to support the new IRO Subobject types (TBD11 and
   TBD12) for the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]:

         Type     IRO Subobject Type



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


         TBD11    Optical Interface Class List

         TBD12    Client Signal Information

   The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is
   similar to Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with 'L'
   field, all the other fields remains the same. The 'L' field is
   described in [RFC3209].

5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply

   This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for
   wavelength allocation request as discussed in Section 4.

5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV

   Recall that wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by
   different means:

   (a)  By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE
        allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the
        path.
   (b)  By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
        potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.

   Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
   signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.

   The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See Section 8.4). Note
   that this TLV is used for both (a) and (b). The TLV data is defined
   as follows:



    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Reserved           |          Flag               |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Link Identifier Field                     |
   //                          . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Allocated Wavelength(s)                    |
   //                        . . . .                              //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019



                Figure 7 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding


   o  Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use.

   o Flags (16 bits)

   One flag bit is allocated as follows:

      .  M (Mode): 1 bit

      -  0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.
      -  1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.

   IANA is to create a new registry to manage the Flag field (TBD14) of
   the Wavelength Allocation TLV.


   Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
   type.


        o Link Identifier: Identifies the interface to which
           assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. for
           Link Identifier encoding.

        o Allocated Wavelength(s): Indicates the allocated
           wavelength(s) to be associated with the Link Identifier. See
           Section 4.3.2 for encoding details.

   This TLV is carried in a PCRep message as an attribute TLV [RFC5420]
   in the Hop Attribute Subobjects [RFC7570] in the ERO [RFC5440].


5.2. Error Indicator

   To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type
   (TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
   inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:

   A new Error-Type (TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as
   follows:




Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


      o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request
        and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
        insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
        PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-
        value=1).  The PCE stops processing the request.  The
        corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.

      o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request
        and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST
        send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8)
        and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing
        the request.  The corresponding RWA computation MUST be
        cancelled at the PCC.

      o Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=3: if a PCE receives a RWA request
        and there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly
        two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier
        types, no matching link for a given identifier, unknown Action
        value, etc.), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-
        ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-
        value=3).




5.3. NO-PATH Indicator


   To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
   path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
   response.  The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
   [RFC5440].  The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
   additional information about why a path computation has failed.

   One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
   NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.

        o Bit TBD7: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was
          found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength
          restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.








Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


6. Manageability Considerations

   Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
   PCE must address the following considerations:

6.1. Control of Function and Policy

   In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
   [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
   following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:

        o The ability to send a WSON RWA request.

   In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
   [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
   following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:

        o The support for WSON RWA.

        o A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender,
           request rate limiter, etc).


   These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
   PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
   specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
   sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.


6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].


6.3. Verifying Correct Operation

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   section 8.4 of [RFC5440]


6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise
   WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019



6.5. Impact on Network Operation

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
   operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
   section 8.6 of [RFC5440].

7. Security Considerations

   The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
   this document, this document does not introduce any new security
   issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information
   distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.

8. IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
   allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
   sections.

8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object

   As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
   wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the
   following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):




   Object Class   Name  Object                     Reference
   Value                Type
   ---------------------------------------------------------


   TBD1           WA    1: Wavelength Assignment   [This.I-D]


8.2. WA Object Flag Field

   As described in Section 4.1, IANA is to create a registry to manage
   the Flag field of the WA object. New values are to be assigned by
   Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the
   following qualities:



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


       o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

       o  Capability description

       o  Defining RFC

   The following values are defined in this document:

   One bit is defined for the WA Object flag in this document:

   Codespace of the Flag field (WA Object)

   Bit      Description                   Reference
   -------------------------------------------------
   0-14     Unassigned                    [This.I-D]

   15       Explicit Label Control        [This.I-D]


8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV

   As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD2              Wavelength Selection       [This.I-D]



8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV

   As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD3              Wavelength Restriction     [This.I-D]


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


                     Constraint


8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values

   As described in Section 4.3, IANA is to allocate a new registry to
   manage the Action values of the Action field in the Wavelength
   Restriction Constraint TLV. New values are assigned by Standards
   Action [RFC8126]. Each value should be tracked with the following
   qualities: value, meaning, and defining RFC. The following values
   are defined in this document:

   Value             Meaning              Reference

   ---------------------------------------------------------

   0                 Inclusive List       [This.I-D]

   1                 Inclusive Range      [This.I-D]

   2-255             Reserved             [This.I-D]


8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV

   As described in Section 5.1, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   the allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request
   by the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
   Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD4              Wavelength Allocation      [This.I-D]

8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field

   As described in Section 5.1, IANA is to allocate a registry to
   manage the Flag field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values
   are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].  Each bit should
   be tracked with the following qualities:

     o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


     o Capability description

     o Defining RFC

   One bit is defined for the Wavelength Allocation flag in this -
   document:

   Codespace of the Flag field (Wavelength Allocation TLV)

   Bit      Description                   Reference
   -------------------------------------------------
   0-14     Unassigned                    [This.I-D]

   15       Wavelength Allocation Mode    [This.I-D]




8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV

   As described in Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).


   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   TBD5              Optical Interface          [This.I-D]
                     Class List

8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV

   As described in Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
   the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).


   Value             Description                Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------



Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   TBD6              Client Signal Information  [This.I-D]



8.10. New No-Path Reasons

   As described in Section 5.3, a new bit flag are defined to be
   carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the
   NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
   route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
   restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
   computation request.

   IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
   TLV Flag Field" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
   tlv).

   Bit         Description                Reference
   -----------------------------------------------------
   TBD7        No RWA constraints met     [This.I-D]

8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values

   As described in Section 5.2, new PCEP error codes are defined for
   WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error Types and Values" sub-registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).



   Error-      Meaning           Error-Value       Reference
   Type
   ---------------------------------------------------------------


   TBD8        WSON RWA Error    0: Unassigned        [This.I-D]

                                 1: Insufficient      [This.I-D]
                                    Memory

                                 2: RWA computation   [This.I-D]
                                    Not supported




Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


                                 3: Syntactical       [This.I-D]
                                    Encoding error

                                 4-255: Unassigned    [This.I-D]


8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object

   As described in Section 4.4.1, the "PCEP Parameters" registry
   contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Exclude
   Route Object (XRO). IANA is requested to add further subobjects that
   can be carried in the XRO as follows:

      Subobject      Type                             Reference

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      TBD9           Optical Interface Class List     [This.I-D]

      TBD10          Client Signal Information        [This.I-D]



8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object

   As described in Section 4.4.2, the "PCEP Parameters" registry
   contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Include
   Route Object (IRO). IANA is requested to add further subobjects that
   can be carried in the IRO as follows:

      Subobject      Type                             Reference

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      TBD11          Optical Interface Class List     [This.I-D]

      TBD12          Client Signal Information        [This.I-D]



8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type

   As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the registry created for Link
   Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link Object Class Type
   name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-
   parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15 is requested for the updated


Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   introductory note that the values have additional usage for the Link
   Identifier Type field.



9. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric, Dhruv
   Dhody and Benjamin Kaduk for many helpful comments that greatly
   improved the contents of this draft.



10. References

10.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G.
             Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
             RFC 3209, December 2001.

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

   [RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
             Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.

   [RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
             March 2009.

   [RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
             Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
             January, 2011.

   [RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute
             in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015.

   [RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element
             Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC
             7579, June 2015.





Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   [RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength
             Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched
             Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.

   [RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
             Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015.

   [RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
             Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
             Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.

   [RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
             Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.

   [RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS:
             Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
             Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC
             8253, October 2017.

   [PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS",
             draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.



10.2. Informative References

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

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

   [RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
             October 2005.

   [RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur, G. Ash, "A Path Computation
             Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
             Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.






Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


   [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
             2009.[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel,
             "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
             Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April
             2009.

   [RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
             "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength
             Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011.

   [RFC6566] Lee, Y. and Berstein, G. (Editors), "A Framework for the
             Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)
             with Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012.

   [RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, (Editors), "Routing and Wavelength
             Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
             Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.

   [RFC7449] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, (Editors), "Path Computation Element
             Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength
             Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength
             Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015.

   [PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
             State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee-
             pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress.

   [RFC8126] M. Cotton, B. Leiba, T,.Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126, June 2017.



















Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019


11. Contributors

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com

   Cyril Margaria
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St Martin Strasse 76
   Munich,   81541
   Germany
   Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com

   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   C/ Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid,   28043
   Spain
   Phone: +34 91 3374013
   Email: ogondio@tid.es

   Greg Bernstein
   Grotto Networking
   Fremont, CA, USA
   Phone: (510) 573-2237
   Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com






















Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft       PCEP Extension for WSON RWA             March 2019




Authors' Addresses

   Young Lee, Editor
   Huawei Technologies
   5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 600
   Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Email: leeyoung@huawei.com


   Ramon Casellas, Editor
   CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av.  Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
   08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
   Spain
   Phone: (34) 936452916
   Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
































Lee & Casellas          Expires September 2019                [Page 33]


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