< draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-09.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10.txt >
Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed. Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed. Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: May 5, 2019 CTTC Expires: June 13, 2019 CTTC
November 4, 2018 December 13, 2018
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-09.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective,
wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
constraint to optical light path computation. constraint to optical path computation.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 43
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................10 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................10
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12 4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions................13 4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions................13
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14 4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14 4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15
5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16 5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17
6. Manageability Considerations..................................17 6. Manageability Considerations..................................17
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17 6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............18 6.2. Information and Data Models..............................18
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18 6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18
6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................18 6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................18
7. Security Considerations.......................................18 7. Security Considerations.......................................18
8. IANA Considerations...........................................19 8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................19 8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................19
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................19 8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................19
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......19 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......19
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................20 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................20
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........20 8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........20
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................21 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................20
8.7. New No-Path Reasons......................................21 8.7. New No-Path Reasons......................................21
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................21 8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................21
9. Acknowledgments...............................................22 9. Acknowledgments...............................................22
10. References...................................................22 10. References...................................................22
10.1. Informative References..................................22 10.1. Normative References....................................22
10.2. Normative References....................................23 10.2. Informative References..................................22
11. Contributors.................................................24 11. Contributors.................................................24
Authors' Addresses...............................................25 Authors' Addresses...............................................25
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "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 3. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines a PCE based path computation architecture and [RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
explains how a Path Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client
Switched Paths (LSP) in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include
Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the path computation requests and path computation replies as well as
request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is said to be any notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the
network component that makes such a request and may be, for context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
instance, an Optical Switching Element within a Wavelength Division (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering.
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.
The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request
used between a PCC and a PCE, and may also be used between and may be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within a
cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself,
requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements can be located anywhere within the network, and may be within an
for PCEP are deferred to separate documents. 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 This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of
Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in
[RFC6163] and [RFC7449]. [RFC6163] and [RFC7449].
WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is
performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal. performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
WSONs can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical WSONs can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical
network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not
skipping to change at page 5, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 12
Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments
Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate
on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, both signals cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, both signals
would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
path computation process. computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on
different links along its route from origin to destination. It is, different links along its route from origin to destination. It is,
however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due
to their relatively high cost, while the number of WDM channels that 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 can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be
composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion, composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion,
nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full
wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an
additional routing constraint to be considered in all lightpath additional routing constraint to be considered in all optical path
computation. computation.
For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may
be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent
segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP 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 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 Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would
be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2. be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be PSC, TDM, etc. For example, X can be PSC, TDM, etc.
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical
signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of
optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender
and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements. and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for more information on of RWA path computation.
optical impairments and GMPLS.
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request 4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture, referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture from via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
which the requirements have been specified in [RFC7449] and the PCEP specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are going to be
extensions that are going to be specified in this document are based specified in this document are based on this architecture.
on this architecture.
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| | | | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+ | PCE | +-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
means: means:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates (a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE
which label to use for each interface/node along the path. in the allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
sense that the allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
subobject.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment. signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation. request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.
The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
<request>::= <RP> <request>::= <RP>
<ENDPOINTS> <ENDPOINTS>
<WA> <WA>
[other optional objects...] [other optional objects...]
If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
the ENDPOINTS object. Orderings with respect to the other following the ENDPOINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with
objects are irrelevant. respect to the other following objects are irrelevant.
The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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| | Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Selection TLV | | Wavelength Selection TLV |
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 15
o Reserved (16 bits) o Reserved (16 bits)
o Flags (16 bits) o Flags (16 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be set The following new flags SHOULD be set
. M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of . M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of
wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates
that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is, that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is,
the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means
of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC3471] for each hop of a of Explicit Label Control for each hop of a computed LSP.
computed LSP. Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs not be explicit
not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label set objects in
set objects in the corresponding response, to allow distributed the corresponding response, to allow distributed WA. In such
WA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as described in
described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See Section 5 of this
Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a document for the encoding discussion of a Label Set Field in a
Label Set Field in a PCRep message. PCRep message.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment 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 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 set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
used when the M bit is cleared. used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689].
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
(PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be (PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be
used. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a used. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a
constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser
transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note
that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have
mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved
wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the TED wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the TED
either via IGP or NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of the either via IGP or NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of the
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 17
. 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a . 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a
range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive). second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are All links with numeric values between the bounds are
considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either
position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
portion of the range. portion of the range.
Note that "interfaces" such as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional.
[RFC2863] are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits) o Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits)
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all 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 links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
of wavelengths. of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type. type.
o Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits) o Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits)
o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively. 4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier field can be an IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329]
interface ID. or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].
<Link Identifier> ::= <Link Identifier> ::=
<IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID> <IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>
The encoding of each case is as follows: The encoding of each case is as follows:
IPv4 prefix Entry IPv4 prefix sub-TLV
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type = 1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) | | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type = 2 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 13, line 8 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific
meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit
integer. integer.
Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field. Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional
field discussion for each action. field discussion for each action.
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions 4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions
Path computation for WSON includes the check of signal processing Path computation for WSON includes the check of signal processing
capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP. Moreover, capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP. Moreover,
a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions for those a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions for those
signal compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link. signal compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link.
The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described
in [RFC7446]: in [RFC7446]:
. Optical Interface Class List . Optical Interface Class List
skipping to change at page 16, line 23 skipping to change at page 16, line 22
Identifier encoding. Identifier encoding.
o Allocated Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated o Allocated Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated
wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for encoding wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for encoding
details. details.
This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. The type carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. The type
value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA. value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA.
5.1. Error Indicator 5.1. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type
(TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object: inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows: follows:
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request . Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The
corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC. corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request . Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB)
and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing
the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be
cancelled at the PCC. cancelled at the PCC.
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the 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 path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed. additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the 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. NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
. Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was . Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was
found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA. restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations: PCE must address the following considerations:
6.1. Control of Function and Policy 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC: following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
. The ability to send a WSON RWA request. . The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE: following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
. The support for WSON RWA. . The support for WSON RWA.
. A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender, . A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender,
request rate limiter, etc). request rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module 6.2. Information and Data Models
Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [RFC7420] should be Extensions to a MIB or a YANG model should be defined, so as to
defined, so as to cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this document.
document. A future revision of this document will list the
information that should be added to the MIB module.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.4 of [RFC5440] section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise
to advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
6.6. Impact on Network Operation 6.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440]. section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
within PCEP . However the additional information distributed in this document, this document does not introduce any new security
order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of network issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information
capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.
Consideration should be given to securing this information.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
sections. sections.
8.1. New PCEP Object 8.1. New PCEP Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the
following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects): (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Object Class Name Object Reference Object Class Name Object Reference
Value Type Value Type
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TDB WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D] TDB WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D]
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV 8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Selection [This.I-D] TBD Wavelength Selection [This.I-D]
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D] TBD Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D]
Constraint Constraint
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the
allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request by 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 the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D] TBD Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D]
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV 8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Optical Interface [This.I-D] TBD Optical Interface [This.I-D]
Class List Class List
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Client Signal Information [This.I-D] TBD Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.7. New No-Path Reasons 8.7. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Section 5.2., a new bit flag are defined to be As described in Section 5.2., a new bit flag are defined to be
carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the 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 NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
computation request. computation request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
TLV Flag Field" subregistry TLV Flag Field" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
tlv). tlv).
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
TBD No RWA constraints met [This.I-D] TBD No RWA constraints met [This.I-D]
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values 8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for
WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" sub-registry Error Types and Values" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object). (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference
Type Type
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
skipping to change at page 22, line 21 skipping to change at page 22, line 14
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft. comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Informative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS",
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group [RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress [RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 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.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471. January 2003. 3471. January 2003.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE)
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., Y. Rekhter, Ed., " OSPF Extensions in
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
September 2006. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March 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. 2009.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL, JP. Vasseur, Y. Ikejiri, and R. Zhang, "OSPF
Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery," RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL, JP. Vasseur, Y. Ikejiri, and R. Zhang, "IS-IS
Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery," RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku, [RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011. Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011.
[RFC6566] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) with Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., E. Stephan, Q. Zhao, D. King, and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors), "Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015.
10.2. Normative References
[PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", draft-
ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, May 2009.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- [RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
January, 2011. January, 2011.
[RFC7570] Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in [RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors),"Routing and Wavelength
the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015. Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength [RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015. Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and [RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC
Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015. 7579, June 2015.
[RFC7581] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment [RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.
Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7579] Bernstein and Lee, "General Network Element Constraint [RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS:
Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC 7579, June Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
2015. Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC
8253, October 2017.
[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.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor Young Lee, Editor
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075, USA Plano, TX 75075, USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
 End of changes. 64 change blocks. 
154 lines changed or deleted 139 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/