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

Versions: (draft-riegel-pwe3-tdm-requirements) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4197

Network Working Group                                          M. Riegel
Internet-Draft                                                Siemens AG
Expires: October 28, 2004                                       (Editor)
                                                          April 29, 2004



  Requirements for Edge-to-Edge Emulation of TDM Circuits over Packet
                        Switching Networks (PSN)
                draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-requirements-05.txt


Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines the specific requirements for
   edge-to-edge-emulation of circuits carrying time division multiplexed
   digital (TDM) signals of the PDH as well as the SONET/SDH hierarchy
   over packet-switched networks. It is aligned to the common
   architecture for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) as defined
   in [PWE3-ARCH].
   It makes references to requirements in [PWE3-REQ] where applicable
   and complements [PWE3-REQ] by defining requirements originating from
   specifics of TDM circuits.



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


Co-Authors

   The following are co-authors of this document:

   Sasha Vainshtein   Axerra Networks
   Yaakov Stein       RAD Data Communication
   Prayson Pate       Overture Networks, Inc.
   Ron Cohen          Lycium Networks
   Tim Frost          Zarlink Semiconductor


Changes from the last revision:

   - Editorial corrections resulting from WG last call





































Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1   TDM circuits belonging to the PDH hierarchy  . . . . . . .  4
       1.1.1   TDM structure and transport modes  . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2   SONET/SDH circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Reference Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1   Generic PWE3 Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2   Clock Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3   Network Synchronization Reference Model  . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.3.1   Synchronous Network Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.2   Relative Network Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.3   Adaptive Network Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Emulated Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1   Structure-Agnostic Transport of signals out of the PDH
           hierarchy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2   Structure-Aware Transport of signals out of the PDH
           hierarchy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3   Structure-Aware Transport of SONET/SDH Circuits  . . . . . 15
   6.  Generic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.1   Relevant Common PW Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.2   Common Circuit Payload Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.3   General Design Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Service-Specific Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1   Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.2   Network Synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.3   Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       7.3.1   Packet loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       7.3.2   Out-of-order delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.4   CE Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.5   PSN bandwidth utilization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.6   Packet Delay Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.7   Compatibility with the Existing PSN Infrastructure . . . . 20
     7.8   Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.9   Fault Detection and Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.10  Performance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 25







Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


1.  Introduction

   This document defines the specific requirements for
   edge-to-edge-emulation of circuits carrying time division multiplexed
   digital signals of the PDH as well as the SONET/SDH hierarchy over
   packet-switched networks. It is aligned to the common architecture
   for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) as defined in
   [PWE3-ARCH].
   It makes references to requirements in [PWE3-REQ] where applicable
   and complements [PWE3-REQ] by defining requirements originating from
   specifics of TDM circuits.

   The term "TDM" will be used in this documents as a general descriptor
   for the synchronous bit streams belonging to either the PDH or the
   SONET/SDH hierarchies.

1.1  TDM circuits belonging to the PDH hierarchy

   The bit rates traditionally used in various regions of the world are
   detailed in the normative reference [G.702]. For example, in North
   America the T1 bit stream of 1.544 Mbps and the T3 bit stream of
   44.736 Mbps are mandated, while in Europe the E1 bit stream of 2.048
   Mbps and the E3 bit stream of 34.368 Mbps are utilized.

   Although TDM can be used to carry unstructured bit streams at the
   rates defined in [G.702], there is a standardized method of carrying
   bit streams in larger units called frames, each frame containing the
   same number of bits.
   Related to the sampling frequency of voice traffic the bitrate is
   always a multiple of 8000, hence the T1 frame consists of 193 bits
   and the E1 frame of 256 bits. The number of bits in a frame is called
   the frame size.

   The framing is imposed by introducing a periodic pattern into the bit
   stream to identify the boundaries of the frames (e.g. 1 framing bit
   per T1 frame, a sequence of 8 framing bits per E1 frame). The details
   of how these framing bits are generated and used are elucidated in
   [G.704], [G.706] and [G.751]. Unframed TDM has all bits available for
   payload.

   Framed TDM is often used to multiplex multiple channels (e.g., voice
   channels each consisting of 8000 8bit-samples per second) in a
   sequence of "timeslots" recurring in the same position in each frame.
   This multiplexing is called "channelized TDM" and introduces
   additional structure.

   In some cases framing also defines groups of consecutive frames
   called multiframes. Such grouping imposes an additional level of



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   structure on the TDM bit-stream.

1.1.1  TDM structure and transport modes

   Unstructured TDM:
   TDM that consists of a raw bit-stream of rate defined in [G.702],
   with all bits are available for payload.

   Structured TDM:
   TDM with one ore more levels of structure delineation, including
   frames, channelization, and multiframes (e.g. as defined in [G.704],
   [G.751], [T1.107]).

   Structure-Agnostic Transport:
   Transport of unstructured TDM, or of structured TDM when the
   structure is deemed inconsequential from the transport point of view.
   In structure-agnostic transport any structural overhead that may be
   present is transparently transported along with the payload data, and
   the encapsulation provides no mechanisms for its location or
   utilization.

   Structure-Aware Transport:
   Transport of structured TDM taking at least some level of the
   structure into account. In structure-aware transport there is no
   guarantee that all bits of the TDM bit-stream will be actually
   transported over the MPLS network (specifically, the synchronization
   bits and related overhead may be stripped at ingress and usually will
   be regenerated at egress), or that bits transported are always
   situated in the packet in their original order.

1.2  SONET/SDH circuits

   The term SONET refers to the North American Synchronous Optical
   NETwork as specified by [T1.105]. It is based on the concept of a
   Nx783 byte payload container repeated every 125us.  This payload is
   referred as an STS-1 SPE and may be concatenated into higher
   bandwidth circuits (e.g. STS-Nc) or sub-divided into lower bandwidth
   circuits (Virtual Tributaries). The higher bandwidth concatenated
   circuits can be used to carry anything from IP Packets to ATM cells
   to Digital Video Signals.  Individual STS-1 SPEs are frequently used
   to carry individual DS3 or E3 TDM circuits.  When the 783 byte
   containers are sub-divided for lower rate payloads, they are
   frequently used to carry individual T1 or E1 TDM circuits.

   The Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) is the international
   equivalent and enhancement of SONET and is specified by [G.707].

   Both SONET and SDH include a substantial amount of transport overhead



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   that is used for performance monitoring, fault isolation, and other
   maintenance functions along different types of optical or electrical
   spans. This also includes a pointer based mechanism for carrying
   payload asynchronously. In addition, the payload area includes
   dedicated overhead for end-to-end performance monitoring, fault
   isolation, and maintenance for the service being carried. If the main
   payload area is sub-divided into lower rate circuits (such as T1/E1),
   additional overhead is included for end-to-end monitoring of the
   individual T1/E1 circuits.

   This document discusses the requirements for emulation of SONET/SDH
   services.  These services include end-to-end emulation of the SONET
   payload (STS-1 SPE), emulation of concatenated payloads (STS-Nc SPE),
   as well as emulation of a variety of sub-STS-1 rate circuits jointly
   referred to as Virtual Tributaries (VT) and their SDH analogs.

2.  Motivation

   [PWE3-REQ] specifies common requirements for edge-to-edge-emulation
   of circuits of various types. However, these requirements, as well as
   references in [PWE3-ARCH] do not cover specifics of PWs carrying TDM
   circuits.

   The need for a specific document complementing [PWE3-REQ] addressing
   edge-to-edge-emulation of TDM circuits arises from following:

   o  Specifics of the TDM circuits,
      e.g.:

      *  the need for balance between the clock of ingress and egress
         attachment circuits in each direction of the PW,

      *  the need to maintain jitter and wander of the clock of the
         egress end service within the limits imposed by the appropriate
         normative documents in the presence of the packet delay
         variation produced by the PSN.

   o  Specifics of applications using TDM circuits,
      e.g. voice applications:

      *  put special emphasis on minimization of one-way delay,

      *  are relatively tolerant to errors in data.

      Other applications might have different specifics.
      e.g. transport of signaling information:

      *  is relatively tolerant to one-way delay,



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


      *  is sensitive to errors in transmitted data.

   o  Specifics of the customers' expectations regarding end-to-end
      behavior of services that contain emulated TDM circuits,
      e.g., experience with carrying such services over SONET/SDH
      networks increases the need for:

      *  isolation of problems introduced by the PSN from those
         occurring beyond the PSN bounds,

      *  sensitivity to misconnection,

      *  sensitivity to unexpected connection termination, etc.


3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The terms defined in [PWE3-ARCH], Section 1.4 are consistently used.
   However some terms and acronyms are specific in conjunction with the
   TDM services. In particular:

   TDM networks employ CAS or CCS signaling to supervise and advertise
   status of telephony applications, provide alerts to these
   applications (as to requests to connect or disconnect), and to
   transfer routing and addressing information. These signals must be
   reliably transported over the PSNs for the telephony end-systems to
   function properly.

   CAS (Channel-Associated Signaling)
      CAS is carried in the same T1 or E1 frame as the voice signals,
      but not in the speech band. Since CAS signaling may be transferred
      at a rate slower than the TDM traffic in a timeslot, one need not
      update all the CAS bits every TDM frame. Hence CAS systems cycle
      through all the signaling bits only after some number of TDM
      frames, defining a new structure known as a multiframe or
      superframe. Common multiframes are 12, 16, or 24 frames in length,
      corresponding to 1.5, 2 and 3 milliseconds in duration.

   CCS (Common Channel Signaling)
      CCS signaling uses a separate digital channel to carry
      asynchronous messages pertaining to the state of telephony
      applications over related TDM timeslots of a TDM trunk. This
      channel may be physically situated in one or more adjacent
      timeslots of the same TDM trunk (trunk associated CCS) or may be



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


      transported over an entirely separate network.
      CCS is typically HDLC-based, with idle codes or keep-alive
      messages being sent until a signaling event (e.g. on-hook or
      off-hook) occurs. Examples of HDLC-based CCS systems are SS7
      [Q.700] and ISDN PRI signaling [Q.931].

   Note: For the TDM network we use the terms "jitter" and "wander" as
   defined in [G.810] to describe short- and long-term variance of the
   significant instants of the digital signal, while for the PSN we use
   the term packet delay variation (PDV) (see [RFC3393]).

4.  Reference Models

4.1  Generic PWE3 Models

   Generic models that have been defined in [PWE3-ARCH] in Sections
   - 4.1 (Network Reference Model),
   - 4.2 (PWE3 Pre-processing),
   - 4.3 (Maintenance Reference Model),
   - 4.4 (Protocol Stack Reference Model) and
   - 4.5 (Pre-processing Extension to Protocol Stack Reference Model).
   They are fully applicable for the purposes of this document without
   modification.

   All the services considered in this document represent special cases
   of the Bit-stream and Structured bit-stream payload type defined in
   Section 3.3 of [PWE3-ARCH].

4.2  Clock Recovery

   Clock recovery is extraction of the transmission bit timing
   information from the delivered packet stream. Extraction of this
   information from a highly jittered source such as a packet stream may
   be a complex task.

4.3  Network Synchronization Reference Model

   A generic network synchronization reference model is shown in Figure
   1 below:












Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


          +---------------+               +---------------+
          |      PE1      |               |      PE2      |
       K  |   +--+        |               |        +--+   |  G
       |  |   | J|        |               |        | H|   |  |
       v  |   v  |        |               |        v  |   |  v
   +---+  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  +--+   +--+  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  +---+
   |   |  | |P|  |D|  |P| |  |  |   |  |  | |P|  |E|  |P| |  |   |
   |   |<===|h|<:|e|<:|h|<:::|  |<::|  |<:::|h|<:|n|<=|h|<===|   |
   |   |  | |y|  |c|  |y| |  |  |   |  |  | |y|  |c|  |y| |  |   |
   | C |  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  |  |   |  |  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  | C |
   | E |  |               |  |S1|   |S2|  |               |  | E |
   | 1 |  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  |  |   |  |  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  | 2 |
   |   |  | |P|  |E|  |P| |  |  |   |  |  | |P|  |D|  |P| |  |   |
   |   |===>|h|=>|n|:>|h|:::>|  |::>|  |:::>|h|:>|e|=>|h|===>|   |
   |   |  | |y|  |c|  |y| |  |  |   |  |  | |y|  |c|  |y| |  |   |
   +---+  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  +--+   +--+  | +-+  +-+  +-+ |  +---+
    ^  ^  |   |  ^        |               |        |  ^   |  ^  ^
    |  |  |   |B |        |<------+------>|        |  |   |  |  |
    |  A  |   +--+        |       |       |        +--+-E |  F  |
    |     +---------------+      +-+      +---------------+     |
    |             ^              |I|               ^            |
    |             |              +-+               |            |
    |             C                                D            |
    +-----------------------------L-----------------------------+

   Figure 1: The Network Synchronization Reference Model

   The following notation is used in Figure 1:

   CE1, CE2
      Customer edge devices terminating TDM circuits to be emulated.

   PE1, PE2
      Provider edge devices adapting these end services to PW.

   S1, S2
      Provider core routers

   Phy
      Physical interface terminating the TDM circuit.

   Enc
      PSN-bound interface of the PW

   Dec
      CE-bound interface of the PW. It contains a compensation buffer
      (also known as the "jitter buffer") of limited size.




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   "==>"
      TDM attachment circuits

   "::>"
      PW providing edge-to-edge-emulation for the TDM circuit.

   The characters "A" - "L" denote various clocks:

   "A"
      The clock used by CE1 for transmission of the TDM attachment
      circuit towards CE1.

   "B"
      The clock recovered by PE1 from the incoming TDM attachment
      circuit. "A" and "B" always have the same frequency.

   "G"
      The clock used by CE2 for transmission of the TDM attachment
      circuit towards CE2.

   "H"
      The clock recovered by PE2 from the incoming TDM attachment
      circuit. "G" and "H" always have the same frequency.

   "C", "D"
      Local oscillators available to PE1 and PE2 respectively.

   "E"
      Clock used by PE2 to transmit the TDM attachment service circuit
      to CE2 (the recovered clock).

   "F"
      Clock recovered by CE2 from the incoming TDM attachment service
      ("E and "F" have the same frequency).

   "I"
      If the clock exists, it is the common network reference clock
      available to PE1 and PE2.

   "J"
      Clock used by PE1 to transmit the TDM attachment service circuit
      to CE1 (the recovered clock).

   "K"
      Clock recovered by CE1 from the incoming TDM attachment service
      ("J" and "K" have the same frequency).





Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   "L"
      If it exists, it is the common reference clock of CE1 and CE2.
      Note that different pairs of CE devices may use different common
      reference clocks.

   A requirement of edge-to-edge-emulation of a TDM circuit is that
   clock "B" and "E" as well as clock "H" and "J" are of the same
   frequency. The most appropriate method will depend on the network
   synchronization scheme.

   The following groups of synchronization scenarios can be considered:


4.3.1  Synchronous Network Scenarios

   Depending on which part of the network is synchronized by a common
   clock there are two scenarios:

   o  PE Synchronized Network:

      Figure 2 below, an adapted version of the generic network
      reference model, presents the PE synchronized network scenario.

      The common network reference clock "I" is available to all the PE
      devices, and local oscillators "C" and "D" are locked to "I":

      *  Clocks "E" and "J" are the same as "D" and "C" respectively.

      *  Clocks "A" and "G" are the same as "K" and "F" respectively
         (i.e., CE1 and CE2 use loop timing).


                       +-----+                 +-----+
      +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
      | /-- |<---------|............PW1..............|<---------| <-\ |
      || CE |    |     | PE1 |                 | PE2 |     |    |CE2 ||
      | \-> |--------->|............PW2..............|--------->| --/ |
      +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
                       +-----+                 +-----+
                          ^                       ^
                          |C                      |D
                          +-----------+-----------+
                                      |
                                     +-+
                                     |I|
                                     +-+

      Figure 2: PE synchronized scenario



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   o  CE Synchronized Network:

      Figure 3 below, an adapted version of the generic network
      reference model, presents the CE synchronized network scenario.

      The common network reference clock "L" is available to all the CE
      devices, and local oscillators "A" and "G" are locked to "L":

      *  Clocks "E" and "J" are the same as "G" and "A" respectively
         (i.e., PE1 and PE2 use loop timing).


                       +-----+                 +-----+
      +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
      |     |<---------|............PW1..............|<---------|     |
      | CE1 |    |     | PE1 |                 | PE2 |     |    | CE2 |
      |     |--------->|............PW2..............|--------->|     |
      +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
        ^              +-----+                 +-----+              ^
        |A                                                         G|
        +----------------------------+------------------------------+
                                     |
                                    +-+
                                    |L|
                                    +-+

      Figure 3: CE synchronized scenario

   No timing information has to be transferred in these cases.

4.3.2  Relative Network Scenario

   In this case each CE uses its own transmission clock source that must
   be carried across the PSN and recovered by the remote PE,
   respectively. The common PE clock "I" can be used as reference for
   this purpose.

   Figure 4 below shows the relative network scenario.

   The common network reference clock "I" is available to all the PE
   devices, and local oscillators "C" and "D" are locked to "I":

   o  Clocks "A" and "G" are generated locally without reference to a
      common clock.

   o  Clocks "E" and "J" are generated in reference to a common clock
      available at all PE devices.




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   In a slight modification of this scenario, one (but not both!) of the
   CE devices may use its receive clock as its transmission clock (i.e.
   use loop timing).

                                                              |G
                    +-----+                 +-----+           v
   +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
   |     |<---------|............PW1..............|<---------|     |
   | CE1 |    |     | PE1 |                 | PE2 |     |    | CE2 |
   |     |--------->|............PW2..............|--------->|     |
   +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
        ^           +-----+<-------+------->+-----+
        |A                         |
                                  +-+
                                  |I|
                                  +-+


   Figure 4: Relative network scenario

   Timing information (the difference between the common reference clock
   "I" and the incoming clock "A") MUST be explicitly transferred in
   this case from the ingress PE to the egress PE.

4.3.3  Adaptive Network Scenario

   The adaptive scenario is characterized by:

   o  No common network reference clock "I" is available to PE1 and PE2.

   o  No common reference clock "L" is available to CE1 and CE2.

   Figure 5 below presents the adaptive network scenario.

                     |J                                       |G
                     v                                        |
                    +-----+                 +-----+           v
   +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
   |     |<---------|............PW1..............|<---------|     |
   | CE1 |    |     | PE1 |                 | PE2 |     |    | CE2 |
   |     |--------->|............PW2..............|--------->|     |
   +-----+    |     |- - -|=================|- - -|     |    +-----+
        ^           +-----+                 +-----+
        |                                        ^
       A|                                       E|

   Figure 5: Adaptive scenario




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   Synchronizing clocks "A" and "E" in this scenario is more difficult
   than it is in the other scenarios.

   Note that the tolerance between clocks "A" and "E" must be small
   enough to ensure that the jitter buffer does not overflow or
   underflow.

   Timing information MAY be explicitly transferred in this case from
   the ingress PE to the egress PE, e. g. by RTP.

5.  Emulated Services

   This section defines requirements for the payload and encapsulation
   layers for edge-to-edge emulation of TDM services with bit-stream
   payload as well as structured bit-stream payload.

   Wherever possible, the requirements specified in this document SHOULD
   be satisfied by appropriate arrangements of the encapsulation layer
   only. The (rare) cases when the requirements apply to both the
   encapsulation and payload layers (or even only to the payload layer
   only) will be explicitly noted.

   The service-specific encapsulation layer for edge-to-edge emulation
   comprises the following services over a PSN.

5.1  Structure-Agnostic Transport of signals out of the PDH hierarchy

   Structure-agnostic transport is considered for the following signals:

   o  E1 as described in [G.704].

   o  T1 (DS1) as described in [G.704].

   o  E3 as defined in [G.751].

   o  T3 (DS3) as described in [T.107].


5.2  Structure-Aware Transport of signals out of the PDH hierarchy

   Structure-aware transport is considered for the following signals:

   o  E1/T1 with one of the structures imposed by framing as described
      in  [G.704]

   o  NxDS0 with or without CAS





Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


5.3  Structure-Aware Transport of SONET/SDH Circuits

   Structure-aware transport is considered for the following SONET/SDH
   circuits:

   o  SONET STS-1 synchronous payload envelope (SPE)/SDH VC-3

   o  SONET STS-Nc SPE (N = 3, 12, 48, 192) / SDH VC-4, VC-4-4c,
      VC-4-16c, VC-4-64c

   o  SONET VT-N (N = 1.5, 2, 3, 6) / SDH VC-11, VC-12, VC-2

   o  SONET Nx VT-N / SDH Nx VC-11/VC-12/VC-2/VC-3

   Note: There is no requirement for the structure-agnostic transport of
   SONET/SDH. It would seem that structure must be taken into account
   for this case.

6.  Generic Requirements

6.1  Relevant Common PW Requirements

   The encapsulation and payload layers must conform to the common PW
   requirements defined in [PWE3-REQ]:

   1.  Conveyance of Necessary Header Information:

       1.  For structure-agnostic transport, this functionality MAY be
           provided by the payload layer.

       2.  For structure-aware transport, the necessary information MUST
           be provided by the encapsulation layer.

       3.  Structure-aware transport of SONET/SDH circuits MUST preserve
           path overhead information as part of the payload. Relevant
           components of the transport overhead MAY be carried in the
           encapsulation layer.

   2.  Support of Multiplexing and Demultiplexing if supported by the
       native services:

       1.  Relevant for Nx DS0 circuits with or without signaling and Nx
           VT-x in a single STS-1 SPE or VC-4.

       2.  For these circuits the combination of encapsulation and
           payload layers MUST provide for separate treatment of every
           sub-circuit.




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


       3.  Enough information SHOULD be provided by the pseudo wire to
           allow multiplexing and demultiplexing by the NSP. Reduction
           of the complexity of the PW emulation by using NSP circuitry
           for multiplexing and demultiplexing MAY be the preferred
           solution.

   3.  Intervention or transparent transfer of Maintenance Messages of
       the Native Services depending on the particular scenario.

   4.  Consideration of Per-PSN Packet Overhead (see also Section 7.5
       below).

   5.  Detection and handling of PW faults. The list of faults is given
       in Section 7.9 below.

   6.  Fragmentation indications MAY be used for structure-aware
       transport when the structures in question either exceed desired
       packetization delay or exceed Path MTU between the pair of PEs.

   The following requirement listed in [PWE3-REQ] is not applicable to
   emulation of TDM services:

   o  Support of variable length PDUs.


6.2  Common Circuit Payload Requirements

   Structure-agnostic transport treats TDM circuits as belonging to the
   'Bit-stream' payload type defined in [PWE3-ARCH].

   Structure-aware transport treats these circuits as belonging to the
   "Structured bit-stream" payload type defined in [PWE3-ARCH].

   Accordingly, the encapsulation layer MUST provide the common
   Sequencing service and SHOULD provide Timing information
   (Synchronization services) when required (see Section 4.3 above).

   Note: Length service MAY be provided by the encapsulation layer but
   is not required.

6.3  General Design Issues

   The combination of payload and encapsulation layers SHOULD comply
   with the general design principles of the Internet protocols as
   presented in [RFC1958], Section 3 and [PWE3-ARCH].

   If necessary, the payload layer MAY use some forms of adaptation of
   the native TDM payload in order to achieve specific well-documented



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   design objectives. In these cases standard adaptation techniques
   SHOULD be used.

7.  Service-Specific Requirements

7.1  Interworking

   1.  The emulation MUST support network interworking between ACs of
       the same type (see Section 5) and, wherever appropriate,
       bit-rate.

   2.  The encapsulation layer SHOULD remain unaffected by specific
       characteristics of connection between the ACs and PE devices at
       the two ends of the PW.


7.2  Network Synchronization

   1.  The encapsulation layer MUST provide synchronization services
       that are sufficient to:

       1.  match the ingress and egress end service clocks regardless of
           the specific network synchronization scenario,

       2.  keep the jitter and wander of the egress service clock within
           the service-specific limits as defined by the appropriate
           normative references.

   2.  If the same high-quality synchronization source is available to
       all the PE devices in the given domain, the encapsulation layer
       SHOULD be able to make use of it (e.g., for better reconstruction
       of the native service clock).


7.3  Robustness

   The robustness of the emulated service depends not only upon the
   edge-to-edge-emulation protocol but also upon proper implementation
   of the following procedures.

7.3.1  Packet loss

   Edge-to-edge-emulation of TDM circuits MAY assume very low
   probability of packet loss between ingress and egress PE. In
   particular, no retransmission mechanisms are required.

   In order to minimize effect of lost packets on the egress service,
   the encapsulation layer SHOULD:



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   1.  Enable independent interpretation of TDM data in each packet by
       the egress PE (see [RFC2736]). This requirement MAY be
       disregarded if the egress PE needs to interpret structures that
       exceed the path MTU between the ingress and egress PEs.

   2.  Allow reliable detection of lost packets (see next section). In
       particular, it SHOULD allow estimation of the arrival time of the
       next packet and detection of lost packets based on this estimate.

   3.  Minimize possible effect of lost packets on recovery of the
       circuit clock by the egress PE.

   4.  Increase the resilience of the CE TDM interface to packet loss by
       allowing the egress PE to substitute appropriate data.


7.3.2  Out-of-order delivery

   The encapsulation layer MUST provide the necessary mechanisms to
   guarantee ordered delivery of packets carrying the TDM data over the
   PSN. Packets that have arrived out-of-order:

   1.  MUST be detected,

   2.  SHOULD be reordered if not judged to be too late or too early for
       playout.

   Out-of-order packets that cannot be reordered MUST be treated as
   lost.

7.4  CE Signaling

   Unstructured TDM circuits would not usually require any special
   mechanism for carrying CE signaling as this would be carried as part
   of the emulated service.

   Some CE applications using structured TDM circuits (e.g., telephony)
   require specific signaling that conveys changes of state of these
   applications relative to the TDM data.

   The encapsulation layer SHOULD support signaling of state of CE
   applications for the relevant circuits providing for:

   1.  Ability to support different signaling schemes with minimal
       impact on encapsulation of TDM data,

   2.  Multiplexing of application-specific CE signals and data of the
       emulated service in the same PW,



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   3.  Synchronization (within the application-specific tolerance
       limits) between CE signals and data at the PW egress,

   4.  Probabilistic recovery against possible occasional loss of
       packets in the PSN,

   5.  Deterministic recovery of the CE application state after PW setup
       and network outages.

   CE signaling that is used for maintenance purposes (loopback
   commands, performance monitoring data retrieval, etc.) SHOULD use the
   generic PWE3 maintenance protocol.

7.5  PSN bandwidth utilization

   1.  The encapsulation layer SHOULD allow for an effective trade-off
       between the following requirements:

       1.  Effective PSN bandwidth utilization. Assuming that the size
           of encapsulation layer header does not depend on the size of
           its payload, increase in the packet payload size results in
           increased efficiency.

       2.  Low edge-to-edge latency. Low end-to-end latency is the
           common requirement for Voice applications over TDM services.
           Packetization latency is one of the components comprising
           edge- to-edge latency and decreases with the packet payload
           size.

       The compensation buffer used by the CE-bound IWF increases
       latency to the emulated circuit. Additional delay introduced by
       this buffer SHOULD NOT exceed the packet delay variation observed
       in the PSN.

   2.  The encapsulation layer MAY provide for saving PSN bandwidth by
       not sending corrupted TDM data across the PSN.

   3.  The encapsulation layer MAY provide the ability to save the PSN
       bandwidth for the structure-aware case by not sending channels
       that are permanently inactive.

   4.  The encapsulation layer MAY enable the dynamic suppression of
       temporarily unused channels from transmission for the
       structure-aware case.
       If used, dynamic suppression of temporarily unused channels
       MUST NOT violate integrity of the structures delivered over the
       PW.




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   5.  For NxDS0 the encapsulation layer MUST provide the ability to
       keep the edge-to-edge delay independent of the service rate.


7.6  Packet Delay Variation

   The encapsulation layer SHOULD provide for ability to compensate for
   packet delay variation while maintaining jitter and wander of the
   egress end service clock with tolerances specified in the normative
   references.

   The encapsulation layer MAY provide for run-time adaptation of delay
   introduced by the jitter buffer if the packet delay variation varies
   with time. Such an adaptation MAY introduce a low level of errors
   (within the limits tolerated by the application) but SHOULD NOT
   introduce additional wander of the egress end service clock.

7.7  Compatibility with the Existing PSN Infrastructure

   The combination of encapsulation and PSN tunnel layers used for
   edge-to-edge emulation of TDM circuits SHOULD be compatible with
   existing PSN infrastructures. In particular, compatibility with the
   mechanisms of header compression over links where capacity is at a
   premium SHOULD be provided.

7.8  Congestion Control

   TDM circuits run at a constant rate, and hence offer constant traffic
   loads to the PSN. The rate varying mechanism that TCP uses to match
   demand to the network congestion state is therefore not applicable.

   The ability to shut down a TDM PW when congestion has been detected
   MUST be provided.

   Precautions should be taken to avoid situations wherein multiple TDM
   PWs are simultaneously shut down or re-established, thus leading to
   PSN instability.

   Further congestion considerations are discussed in chapter 6.5 of
   [PWE3-ARCH].

7.9  Fault Detection and Handling

   The encapsulation layer for edge-to-edge emulation of TDM services
   SHOULD, separately or in conjunction with the lower layers of the
   PWE3 stack, provide for detection, handling and reporting of the
   following defects:




Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   1.  Misconnection, or Stray Packets. The importance of this
       requirement stems from customer expectation due to reliable
       misconnection detection in SONET/SDH networks.

   2.  Packet Loss. Packet loss detection required in order to maintain
       clock integrity, as discussed in Section 7.3.1 above. In
       addition, packet loss detection mechanisms SHOULD provide for
       localization of the outage in the end-to-end emulated service.

   3.  Malformed packets.


7.10  Performance Monitoring

   The encapsulation layer for edge-to-edge emulation of TDM services
   SHOULD provide for collection of performance monitoring (PM) data
   that is compatible with the parameters defined for 'classic', TDM-
   based carriers of these services. The applicability of [G.826] is
   left for further study.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations listed in [PWE3-REQ] fully apply also to
   the emulation of TDM circuits.

9.  References

9.1  Normative References

   [PWE3-REQ] draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-08.txt XiPeng Xiao et al,
   Requirements for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3), Work in
   Progress, January 2004

   [PWE3-ARCH] draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-07.txt Stewart Bryant et al, PWE3
   Architecture, Work in progress, March 2004

   [G.702] ITU-T Recommendation G.702 (11/88) - Digital hierarchy bit
   rates

   [G.704] ITU-T Recommendation G.704 (10/98) - Synchronous frame
   structures used at 1544, 6312, 2048, 8448 and 44 736 Kbit/s
   hierarchical levels

   [G.706] ITU-T Recommendation G.706 (04/91) - Frame alignment and
   cyclic redundancy check (CRC) procedures relating to basic frame
   structures defined in Recommendation G.704

   [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707 (10/00) - Network node interface



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)

   [G.751] ITU-T Recommendation G.751 (11/88) - Digital multiplex
   equipments operating at the third order bit rate of 34 368 Kbit/s and
   the fourth order bit rate of 139 264 Kbit/s and using positive
   justification

   [G.810] ITU-T Recommendation G.810 (08/96) - Definitions and
   terminology for synchronization networks

   [RFC1958] B. Carpenter (ed.), Architectural Principles of the
   Internet, RFC 1958, IETF, 1996

   [RFC2119] S.Bradner, Key Words in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels, RFC 2119, IETF, 1997

   [RFC2736] M. Handley, C. Perkins, Guidelines for Writers of RTP
   Payload Format Specifications, RFC 2736, IETF, 1999

   [RFC3393] C. Demichelis, P. Chimento, IP Packet Delay Variation
   Metric for IPPM, RFC 3393, IETF, 2002

   [T1.105] ANSI T1.105 - 2001 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) -
   Basic Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Formats,
   May 2001

   [T1.107] ANSI T1.107 - 1995. Digital Hierarchy - Format Specification

9.2  Informative References

   [G.826] ITU-T Recommendation G.826 (02/99) - Error performance
   parameters and objectives for international, constant bit rate
   digital paths at or above the primary rate

   [Q.700] ITU-T Recommendation Q.700 (03/93) - Introduction to CCITT
   Signalling System No. 7

   [Q.931] ITU-T Recommendation Q.931 (05/98) - ISDN user-network
   interface layer 3 specification for basic call control












Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


Authors' Addresses

   Maximilian Riegel
   Siemens AG
   St-Martin-Str 76
   Munich  81541
   Germany

   Phone: +49-89-636-75194
   EMail: maximilian.riegel@siemens.com


   Alexander  (Sasha) Vainshtein
   Axerra Networks
   24 Raoul Wallenberg St.
   Tel Aviv  69719
   Israel

   Phone: +972-3-7569993
   EMail: sasha@axerra.com


   Yaakov (Jonathan) Stein
   RAD Data Communications
   24 Raoul Wallenberg St., Bldg. C
   Tel Aviv  69719
   Israel

   Phone: +972-3-645-5389
   EMail: yaakov_s@rad.com


   Prayson Pate
   Overture Networks, Inc.
   507 Aviation Blvd, Suite 111
   Morrisville, NC  27560
   USA

   EMail: prayson.pate@overturenetworks.com












Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   Ron Cohen
   Lycium Networks
   14 Hatidhar st.
   Raanana  43000
   Israel

   Phone: +972-9-7619004
   EMail: ronc@lyciumnetworks.com


   Tim Frost
   Zarlink Semiconductor
   Tamerton Road
   Roborough, Plymouth  PL6 7BQ
   UK

   EMail: tim.frost@zarlink.com


































Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           PWE3 TDM Requirements                April 2004


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Riegel, et al.          Expires October 28, 2004               [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/