draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-03.txt 
Network Working Group G. Bernstein Network Working Group G. Bernstein
Internet Draft Grotto Networking Internet Draft Grotto Networking
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee
Expires: December 2010 D. Li Expires: April 2011 D. Li
Huawei Huawei
W. Imajuku W. Imajuku
NTT NTT
June 9, 2010 October 13, 2010
General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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 December 9, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 13, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 3, line 13 skipping to change at page 3, line 13
3.2.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists......................9 3.2.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists......................9
3.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................10 3.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................10
3.2.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................10 3.2.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................10
3.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV.................................11 3.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV.................................11
3.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV.............................12 3.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV.............................12
3.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................12 3.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................12
3.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV...........................13 3.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV...........................13
3.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL........................................14 3.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL........................................14
3.6.2. CHANNEL_COUNT.......................................15 3.6.2. CHANNEL_COUNT.......................................15
3.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1........................................15 3.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1........................................15
3.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................15 3.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................16
3.6.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................16
4. Security Considerations.......................................16 4. Security Considerations.......................................16
5. IANA Considerations...........................................16 5. IANA Considerations...........................................17
6. Acknowledgments...............................................16 6. Acknowledgments...............................................17
APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................17 APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................18
A.1. Link Set Field...........................................17 A.1. Link Set Field...........................................18
A.2. Label Set Field..........................................17 A.2. Label Set Field..........................................18
A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................18 A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................19
A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........21 A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........22
7. References....................................................24 7. References....................................................25
7.1. Normative References.....................................24 7.1. Normative References.....................................25
7.2. Informative References...................................24 7.2. Informative References...................................25
8. Contributors..................................................26 8. Contributors..................................................26
Authors' Addresses...............................................26 Authors' Addresses...............................................27
Intellectual Property Statement..................................27 Intellectual Property Statement..................................28
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................28 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................28
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS control Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS control
plane contain additional constraints on switching capability and plane contain additional constraints on switching capability and
label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must
perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the
technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON [WSON- technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON [WSON-
Frame]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by link Frame]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by link
label availability in path computation and label assignment. label availability in path computation and label assignment.
This document provides efficient encodings of information needed by This document provides efficient encodings of information needed by
skipping to change at page 5, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 42
<MatrixSpecificRestriction> ::= <MatrixID> <RestrictionType> <MatrixSpecificRestriction> ::= <MatrixID> <RestrictionType>
[<RestrictionParameters>] [<RestrictionParameters>]
Where Where
MatrixID is the ID of the corresponding connectivity matrix MatrixID is the ID of the corresponding connectivity matrix
The RestrictionType parameter is used to specify general port The RestrictionType parameter is used to specify general port
restrictions and matrix specific restrictions. restrictions and matrix specific restrictions.
2. Extension Encoding Usage Recommendations 2. Extension Encoding Usage Recommendations
In this section we give recommendations of typical usage of the sub- In this section we give recommendations of typical usage of the sub-
TLVs and composite TLVs. TLVs and composite TLVs.
2.1. Extension Node TLV 2.1. Extension Node TLV
The Extension Node TLV could consist of the following list of sub- The Extension Node TLV could consist of the following list of sub-
TLVs: TLVs:
<Node_Info> ::= <Node_ID>[Other GMPLS sub-TLVs] <Node_Info> ::= <Node_ID>[Other GMPLS sub-TLVs]
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
2.3. Extension Dynamic Link TLV 2.3. Extension Dynamic Link TLV
If the protocol supports the separation of dynamic information from If the protocol supports the separation of dynamic information from
relatively static information then the available wavelength and relatively static information then the available wavelength and
shared backup status can be separated from the general link TLV into shared backup status can be separated from the general link TLV into
a TLV for dynamic link information. a TLV for dynamic link information.
<DynamicLinkInfo> ::= <LinkID> <AvailableLabels> <DynamicLinkInfo> ::= <LinkID> <AvailableLabels>
[<SharedBackupLabels>] [<SharedBackupLabels>]
3. Encoding 3. Encoding
A type-length-value (TLV) encoding of the general connectivity and A type-length-value (TLV) encoding of the general connectivity and
label restrictions and availability extensions is given in this label restrictions and availability extensions is given in this
section. This encoding is designed to be suitable for use in the section. This encoding is designed to be suitable for use in the
GMPLS routing protocols OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307] and in the GMPLS routing protocols OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307] and in the
PCE protocol PCEP [PCEP]. Note that the information distributed in PCE protocol PCEP [PCEP]. Note that the information distributed in
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307] is arranged via the nesting of sub-TLVs [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] is arranged via the nesting of sub-TLVs
within TLVs and this document makes use of such constructs. First, within TLVs and this document makes use of such constructs. First,
however we define two general purpose fields that will be used however we define two general purpose fields that will be used
repeatedly in the subsequent TLVs. repeatedly in the subsequent TLVs.
3.1. Link Set Field 3.1. Link Set Field
We will frequently need to describe properties of groups of links. To We will frequently need to describe properties of groups of links. To
do so efficiently we can make use of a link set concept similar to do so efficiently we can make use of a link set concept similar to
the label set concept of [RFC3471]. This Link Set Field is used in the label set concept of [RFC3471]. This Link Set Field is used in
the <ConnectivityMatrix> sub-TLV, which is defined in Section 6.3. the <ConnectivityMatrix> sub-TLV, which is defined in Section 3.5.
The information carried in a Link Set is defined by: The information carried in a Link Set is defined by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action |Dir| Format | Length | | Action |Dir| Format | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier 1 | | Link Identifier 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 46
The link identifier represents the port which is being described The link identifier represents the port which is being described
either for connectivity or label restrictions. This can be the link either for connectivity or label restrictions. This can be the link
local identifier of [RFC4202], GMPLS routing, [RFC4203] GMPLS OSPF local identifier of [RFC4202], GMPLS routing, [RFC4203] GMPLS OSPF
routing, and [RFC5307] IS-IS GMPLS routing. The use of the link local routing, and [RFC5307] IS-IS GMPLS routing. The use of the link local
identifier format can result in more compact encodings when the identifier format can result in more compact encodings when the
assignments are done in a reasonable fashion. assignments are done in a reasonable fashion.
3.2. Label Set Field 3.2. Label Set Field
Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> sub-TLV or the Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> sub-TLV or the
<SharedBackupLabels> sub-TLV, which is defined in Section 6.1 and <SharedBackupLabels> sub-TLV, which is defined in Section 3.3. and
6.2, respectively. 3.4. , respectively.
The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses
the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to define the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to define
a "bit map" type of label set. The second 32 bit field is a base a "bit map" type of label set. The second 32 bit field is a base
label used as a starting point in many of the specific formats. label used as a starting point in many of the specific formats.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action| Num Labels | Length | | Action| Num Labels | Length |
skipping to change at page 12, line 20 skipping to change at page 12, line 20
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV 3.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV
Connectivity Matrix represents how ingress ports are connected to The Connectivity Matrix represents how ingress ports are connected to
egress ports for network elements. egress ports for network elements. The switch and fixed connectivity
matrices can be compactly represented in terms of a minimal list of
The switch and fixed connectivity matrices of [WSON-Info] can be ingress and egress port set pairs that have mutual connectivity. As
compactly represented in terms of a minimal list of ingress and described in [Switch] such a minimal list representation leads
egress port set pairs that have mutual connectivity. As described in naturally to a graph representation for path computation purposes
[Switch] such a minimal list representation leads naturally to a that involves the fewest additional nodes and links.
graph representation for path computation purposes that involves the
fewest additional nodes and links.
A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is: A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Connectivity | MatrixID | Reserved | | Connectivity | MatrixID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set A #1 | | Link Set A #1 |
: : : : : :
skipping to change at page 13, line 42 skipping to change at page 13, line 39
set B can potentially egress on a link in set A. set B can potentially egress on a link in set A.
See Appendix A for both types of encodings as applied to a ROADM See Appendix A for both types of encodings as applied to a ROADM
example. example.
3.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV 3.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV
Port Label Restriction tells us what labels may or may not be used on Port Label Restriction tells us what labels may or may not be used on
a link. a link.
The port label restriction of [WSON-Info] can be encoded as a sub-TLV The port label restriction of section 1.2. can be encoded as a sub-
as follows. More than one of these sub-TLVs may be needed to fully TLV as follows. More than one of these sub-TLVs may be needed to
specify a complex port constraint. When more than one of these sub- fully specify a complex port constraint. When more than one of these
TLVs are present the resulting restriction is the intersection of the sub-TLVs are present the resulting restriction is the intersection of
restrictions expressed in each sub-TLV. To indicate that a the restrictions expressed in each sub-TLV. To indicate that a
restriction applies to the port in general and not to a specific restriction applies to the port in general and not to a specific
connectivity matrix use the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID. connectivity matrix use the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID | RestrictionType | Reserved/Parameter | | MatrixID | RestrictionType | Reserved/Parameter |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType | | Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType |
: : : :
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 35
2: LABEL_RANGE1 (Label range device with a movable center label 2: LABEL_RANGE1 (Label range device with a movable center label
and width) and width)
3: SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT (Combination of SIMPLE_LABEL 3: SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT (Combination of SIMPLE_LABEL
and CHANNEL_COUNT restriction. The accompanying label set and and CHANNEL_COUNT restriction. The accompanying label set and
channel count indicate labels permitted on the port and the channel count indicate labels permitted on the port and the
maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used on maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used on
the port) the port)
4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once
amongst a set of specified ports)
3.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL 3.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL
In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL the GeneralPortRestrictions (or In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL the GeneralPortRestrictions (or
MatrixSpecificRestrictions) format is given by: MatrixSpecificRestrictions) format is given by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID | RstType = 0 | Reserved | | MatrixID | RstType = 0 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 16, line 8 skipping to change at page 16, line 15
to existing signals. to existing signals.
3.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT 3.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT
In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given
by: by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixInfo | RstType = 3 | MaxNumChannels | | MatrixID | RstType = 3 | MaxNumChannels |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate
labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that
can be simultaneously used on the port. can be simultaneously used on the port.
4. Security Considerations 3.6.5. Link Label Exclusivity
In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given
by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID | RstType = 4 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying port set indicate that a label may be
used at most once among the ports in the link set field.
4. Security Considerations
This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON
information and does not introduce any security issues. information and does not introduce any security issues.
However, other documents that make use of these encodings within However, other documents that make use of these encodings within
protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated
with, inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of with, inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of
this information. It is expected that any such documents will this information. It is expected that any such documents will
describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate
protection. protection.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
TBD. Once our approach is finalized we may need identifiers for the TBD. Once our approach is finalized we may need identifiers for the
various TLVs and sub-TLVs. various TLVs and sub-TLVs.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples
Here we give examples of the general encoding extensions applied to Here we give examples of the general encoding extensions applied to
some simple ROADM network elements and links. some simple ROADM network elements and links.
A.1. Link Set Field A.1. Link Set Field
skipping to change at page 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |12 | Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |12
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #1 |13 | Link Local Identifier = #1 |13
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |14 | Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |14
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #2 |15 | Link Local Identifier = #2 |15
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
skipping to change at page 24, line 38 skipping to change at page 25, line 38
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM [G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM
applications: DWDM frequency grid, June 2002. applications: DWDM frequency grid, June 2002.
[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, Spectral grids for WDM [G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid, December 2003. applications: CWDM wavelength grid, December 2003.
[Otani] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, "Generalized
Labels for G.694 Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-
lambda-labels.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[Switch] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, A. Gavler, J. Martensson, " Modeling [Switch] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, A. Gavler, J. Martensson, " Modeling
WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and Automated WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and Automated
Path Computation", Journal of Optical Communications and Path Computation", Journal of Optical Communications and
Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195. Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195.
[WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS
and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-wavelength-switched-
framework, February, 2010.
[WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-info, February, 2010.
[WSON-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, Februsary, 2010.
[PCEP] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [PCEP] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1",
RFC5440. RFC5440.
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153 Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736 Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@(marconi.com, ericsson.com) Email: diego.caviglia@(marconi.com, ericsson.com)
Anders Gavler Anders Gavler
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
63 lines changed or deleted 61 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/