draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-10.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-11.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: March 2013 D. Li Expires: November 2013 D. Li
Huawei Huawei
W. Imajuku W. Imajuku
NTT NTT
September 28, 2012 May 6, 2013
General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-10.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-11.txt
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 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 March 28, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints......................4 1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints......................4
1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints....................4 1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints....................4
1.3. Change Log................................................5 1.3. Change Log................................................5
2. Encoding.......................................................6 2. Encoding.......................................................6
2.1. Link Set Field............................................6 2.1. Link Set Field............................................6
2.2. Label Set Field...........................................8 2.2. Label Set Field...........................................8
2.2.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists......................9 2.2.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists......................9
2.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges ...................10 2.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges.....................9
2.2.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................10 2.2.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................10
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
2.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV.................................11 2.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV.................................11
2.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV.............................11 2.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV.............................11
2.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................12 2.5. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................12
2.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV...........................14 2.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV...........................13
2.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL........................................15 2.6.1. SIMPLE_LABEL........................................14
2.6.2. CHANNEL_COUNT.......................................15 2.6.2. CHANNEL_COUNT.......................................15
2.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1........................................16 2.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1........................................15
2.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................16 2.6.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................16
2.6.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................17 2.6.5. Link Label Exclusivit...............................16
3. Security Considerations.......................................17 3. Security Considerations.......................................17
4. IANA Considerations...........................................17 4. IANA Considerations...........................................17
5. Acknowledgments...............................................17 5. Acknowledgments...............................................17
APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................18 APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................18
A.1. Link Set Field...........................................18 A.1. Link Set Field...........................................18
A.2. Label Set Field..........................................18 A.2. Label Set Field..........................................18
A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................19 A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV..............................19
A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........22 A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........22
A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV.24 A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV.24
6. References....................................................26 6. References....................................................26
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
link label availability in path computation and label assignment. link 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
the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as
WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of
technologies. Such encodings can be used to extend GMPLS signaling technologies. Such encodings can be used to extend GMPLS signaling
and routing protocols. In addition these encodings could be used by and routing protocols. In addition these encodings could be used by
other mechanisms to convey this same information to a path other mechanisms to convey this same information to a path
computation element (PCE). computation element (PCE).
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints 1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints
For some network elements the ability of a signal or packet on a For some network elements the ability of a signal or packet on a
particular ingress port to reach a particular egress port may be particular ingress port to reach a particular egress port may be
limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity
between some ingress ports and egress ports may be fixed, e.g., a between some ingress ports and egress ports may be fixed, e.g., a
simple multiplexer. To take into account such constraints during simple multiplexer. To take into account such constraints during
path computation we model this aspect of a network element via a path computation we model this aspect of a network element via a
connectivity matrix. connectivity matrix.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
labels available for use on an egress port and a set of labels labels available for use on an egress port and a set of labels
already in use on that port and hence unavailable for use. This already in use on that port and hence unavailable for use. This
information, however, does not need to be shared unless there is information, however, does not need to be shared unless there is
some limitation on the LSR's label swapping ability. For example if some limitation on the LSR's label swapping ability. For example if
a TDM node lacks the ability to perform time-slot interchange or a a TDM node lacks the ability to perform time-slot interchange or a
WSON lacks the ability to perform wavelength conversion then the WSON lacks the ability to perform wavelength conversion then the
label assignment process is not local to a single node and it may be label assignment process is not local to a single node and it may be
advantageous to share the label assignment constraint information advantageous to share the label assignment constraint information
for use in path computation. for use in path computation.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Port label restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label Port label restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label
restrictions that the network element (node) and link may impose on restrictions that the network element (node) and link may impose on
a port. These restrictions tell us what labels may or may not be a port. These restrictions tell us what labels may or may not be
used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More
dynamic information is contained in the information on available dynamic information is contained in the information on available
labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port
in general or to a specific connectivity matrix for increased in general or to a specific connectivity matrix for increased
modeling flexibility. Reference [Switch] gives an example where both modeling flexibility. Reference [Switch] gives an example where both
switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of
constraints occur on the same port. constraints occur on the same port.
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
Label Restriction sub-TLV in Section 2.6. Label Restriction sub-TLV in Section 2.6.
Eliminated A (Availability) Bit from Available Labels Sub-TLV and Eliminated A (Availability) Bit from Available Labels Sub-TLV and
Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV.
Changes from 09 version: Changes from 09 version:
Editorial change: Action field can be set to 0x01(Inclusive Range) Editorial change: Action field can be set to 0x01(Inclusive Range)
for Link Set Field Encoding in Section 2.1. for Link Set Field Encoding in Section 2.1.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September Changes from 10 version:
2012
Editorial change: A.5 example was corrected to be consistent to
Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2. Encoding 2. 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 GMPLS routing protocols OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307] and in
the PCE protocol PCEP [PCEP]. Note that the information distributed the PCE protocol PCEP [PCEP]. Note that the information distributed
in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] is arranged via the nesting of sub-TLVs in [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,
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier N | | Link Identifier N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: 8 bits Action: 8 bits
0 - Inclusive List 0 - Inclusive List
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Indicates that one or more link identifiers are included in the Link Indicates that one or more link identifiers are included in the Link
Set. Each identifies a separate link that is part of the set. Set. Each identifies a separate link that is part of the set.
1 - Inclusive Range 1 - Inclusive Range
Indicates that the Link Set defines a range of links. It contains Indicates that the Link Set defines a range of links. It contains
two link identifiers. The first identifier indicates the start of two link identifiers. The first identifier indicates the start of
the range (inclusive). The second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive). The second identifier indicates the end of
the range (inclusive). All links with numeric values between the the range (inclusive). All links with numeric values between the
bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 48
0 -- Link Local Identifier 0 -- Link Local Identifier
Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by link Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by link
local identifiers. All link local identifiers are supplied in the local identifiers. All link local identifiers are supplied in the
context of the advertising node. context of the advertising node.
1 -- Local Interface IPv4 Address 1 -- Local Interface IPv4 Address
2 -- Local Interface IPv6 Address 2 -- Local Interface IPv6 Address
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by Local Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by Local
Interface IP Address. All Local Interface IP Address are supplied in Interface IP Address. All Local Interface IP Address are supplied in
the context of the advertising node. the context of the advertising node.
Others TBD. Others TBD.
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.
Length: 16 bits Length: 16 bits
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Base Label | | Base Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action | | Additional fields as necessary per action |
| |
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Action: Action:
0 - Inclusive List 0 - Inclusive List
1 - Exclusive List 1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range 2 - Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range 3 - Exclusive Range
4 - Bitmap Set 4 - Bitmap Set
Num Labels is only meaningful for Action value of 4 (Bitmap Set). It Num Labels is only meaningful for Action value of 4 (Bitmap Set). It
indicates the number of labels represented by the bit map. See more indicates the number of labels represented by the bit map. See more
detail in section 3.2.3. detail in section 3.2.3.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 39
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Last Label | | Last Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where: Where:
Num Labels is not used in this particular format since the Length Num Labels is not used in this particular format since the Length
parameter is sufficient to determine the number of labels in the parameter is sufficient to determine the number of labels in the
list. list.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
2.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges 2.2.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges
In the case of inclusive/exclusive ranges the label set format is In the case of inclusive/exclusive ranges the label set format is
given by: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|2 or 3 | Num Labels(not used) | Length | |2 or 3 | Num Labels(not used) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bit Map Word #N (Highest numerical labels) | | Bit Map Word #N (Highest numerical labels) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where Num Labels in this case tells us the number of labels Where Num Labels in this case tells us the number of labels
represented by the bit map. Each bit in the bit map represents a represented by the bit map. Each bit in the bit map represents a
particular label with a value of 1/0 indicating whether the label is particular label with a value of 1/0 indicating whether the label is
in the set or not. Bit position zero represents the lowest label and in the set or not. Bit position zero represents the lowest label and
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
corresponds to the base label, while each succeeding bit position corresponds to the base label, while each succeeding bit position
represents the next label logically above the previous. represents the next label logically above the previous.
The size of the bit map is Num Label bits, but the bit map is padded The size of the bit map is Num Label bits, but the bit map is padded
out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the TLV is a multiple of out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the TLV is a multiple of
four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e., those in four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e., those in
positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero and MUST be positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero and MUST be
ignored. ignored.
2.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV 2.3. Available Labels Sub-TLV
The Available Labels sub-TLV link consists of an availability flag, The Available Labels sub-TLV link consists of priority flags, and a
priority flags, and a single variable length label set field as single variable length label set field 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PRI | Reserved | | PRI | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): Indicates priority level applied to PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): Indicates priority level applied to
Label Set Field. Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15 Label Set Field. Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15
corresponds to priority level 7. corresponds to priority level 7.
Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.2. See Appendix Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.2. See Appendix
A.5. for illustrative examples. A.5. for illustrative examples.
2.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV 2.4. Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV
The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV consists of an availability flag, The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV consists of priority flags, and
priority flags, and single variable length label set field as single variable length label set field as follows:
follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PRI | Reserved | | PRI | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
to egress ports for network elements. The switch and fixed to egress ports for network elements. The switch and fixed
connectivity matrices can be compactly represented in terms of a connectivity matrices can be compactly represented in terms of a
minimal list of ingress and egress port set pairs that have mutual minimal list of ingress and egress port set pairs that have mutual
connectivity. As described in [Switch] such a minimal list connectivity. As described in [Switch] such a minimal list
representation leads naturally to a graph representation for path representation leads naturally to a graph representation for path
computation purposes that involves the fewest additional nodes and computation purposes that involves the fewest additional nodes and
links. links.
A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is: A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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 |
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set B #1 : | Link Set B #1 :
: : : : : :
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
any signal that ingresses a link in set A can be potentially any signal that ingresses a link in set A can be potentially
switched out of an egress link in set B. switched out of an egress link in set B.
o Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional o Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional
The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that
any signal that ingresses on the links in set A can potentially any signal that ingresses on the links in set A can potentially
egress on a link in set B, and any ingress signal on the links in egress on a link in set B, and any ingress signal on the links in
set B can potentially egress on a link in set A. set B can potentially egress on a link in set A.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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.
2.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV 2.6. Port Label Restriction sub-TLV
Port Label Restriction tells us what labels may or may not be used Port Label Restriction tells us what labels may or may not be used
on a link. on a link.
The port label restriction of section 1.2. can be encoded as a sub- The port label restriction of section 1.2. can be encoded as a sub-
TLV as follows. More than one of these sub-TLVs may be needed to TLV as follows. More than one of these sub-TLVs may be needed to
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 32
0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction) 0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction)
1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction) 1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction)
2: LABEL_RANGE1 (Label range device with a movable center 2: LABEL_RANGE1 (Label range device with a movable center
label and width) label 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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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 4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once
amongst a set of specified ports) amongst a set of specified ports)
Switching Capability is defined in [RFC4203] and Encoding in Switching Capability is defined in [RFC4203] and Encoding in
[RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the type of [RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the type of
labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as well as the labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as well as the
interface type to which these restrictions apply. interface type to which these restrictions apply.
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 32
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID | RstType = 1 | Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 1 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxNumChannels | | MaxNumChannels |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying MaxNumChannels indicates the maximum In this case the accompanying MaxNumChannels indicates the maximum
number of channels (labels) that can be simultaneously used on the number of channels (labels) that can be simultaneously used on the
port/matrix. port/matrix.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
2.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1 2.6.3. LABEL_RANGE1
In the case of the LABEL_RANGE1 the GeneralPortRestrictions (or In the case of the LABEL_RANGE1 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 = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 41
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxNumChannels | | 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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
2.6.5. Link Label Exclusivity 2.6.5. Link Label Exclusivity
In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the format is given by: In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the 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 = 4 | Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 4 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set Field | | Link Set Field |
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
4. IANA Considerations 4. 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.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
Suppose that we wish to describe a set of ingress ports that are Suppose that we wish to describe a set of ingress ports that are
have link local identifiers number 3 through 42. In the link set have link local identifiers number 3 through 42. In the link set
field we set the Action = 1 to denote an inclusive range; the Dir = field we set the Action = 1 to denote an inclusive range; the Dir =
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
193.1 0 11 193.1 0 11
193.9 8 19 193.9 8 19
194.0 9 20 194.0 9 20
195.2 21 32 195.2 21 32
195.8 27 38 195.8 27 38
With the Grid value set to indicate an ITU-T G.694.1 DWDM grid, C.S. With the Grid value set to indicate an ITU-T G.694.1 DWDM grid, C.S.
set to indicate 100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded set to indicate 100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded
as follows: as follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | Num Wavelengths = 40 | Length = 16 bytes | | 4 | Num Wavelengths = 40 | Length = 16 bytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 | |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| |1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Not used in 40 Channel system (all zeros) | |1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Not used in 40 Channel system (all zeros) |
skipping to change at page 20, line 4 skipping to change at page 19, line 45
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 | |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV A.3. Connectivity Matrix Sub-TLV
Example: Example:
Suppose we have a typical 2-degree 40 channel ROADM. In addition to Suppose we have a typical 2-degree 40 channel ROADM. In addition to
its two line side ports it has 80 add and 80 drop ports. The picture its two line side ports it has 80 add and 80 drop ports. The picture
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
below illustrates how a typical 2-degree ROADM system that works below illustrates how a typical 2-degree ROADM system that works
with bi-directional fiber pairs is a highly asymmetrical system with bi-directional fiber pairs is a highly asymmetrical system
composed of two unidirectional ROADM subsystems. composed of two unidirectional ROADM subsystems.
(Tributary) Ports #3-#42 (Tributary) Ports #3-#42
Ingress added to Egress dropped from Ingress added to Egress dropped from
West Line Egress East Line Ingress West Line Egress East Line Ingress
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
skipping to change at page 21, line 5 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
#3-#42 (add ports) can only connect to the egress on port #1. While #3-#42 (add ports) can only connect to the egress on port #1. While
the ingress side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the the ingress side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the
egress on ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the egress on port #1 (pass egress on ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the egress on port #1 (pass
through). Similarly, the ingress direction of ports #43-#82 can only through). Similarly, the ingress direction of ports #43-#82 can only
connect to the egress on port #2 (line). While the ingress direction connect to the egress on port #2 (line). While the ingress direction
of port #1 can only connect to the egress on ports #43-#82 (drop) or of port #1 can only connect to the egress on ports #43-#82 (drop) or
port #2 (pass through). We can now represent this potential port #2 (pass through). We can now represent this potential
connectivity matrix as follows. This representation uses only 30 32- connectivity matrix as follows. This representation uses only 30 32-
bit words. bit words.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved | | Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: adds to line Note: adds to line
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 | | Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #3 | | Link Local Identifier = #3 |
skipping to change at page 22, line 4 skipping to change at page 21, line 49
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 | | Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #1 | | Link Local Identifier = #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: adds to line Note: adds to line
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 | | Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #43 | | Link Local Identifier = #43 |
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #82 | | Link Local Identifier = #82 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 | | Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #2 | | Link Local Identifier = #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: line to drops Note: line to drops
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0|| Length = 8 | | Action=0 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0|| Length = 8 |
skipping to change at page 23, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry
If one has the ability to renumber the ports of the previous example If one has the ability to renumber the ports of the previous example
as shown in the next figure then we can take advantage of the bi- as shown in the next figure then we can take advantage of the bi-
directional symmetry and use bi-directional encoding of the directional symmetry and use bi-directional encoding of the
connectivity matrix. Note that we set dir=bidirectional in the link connectivity matrix. Note that we set dir=bidirectional in the link
set fields. set fields.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
(Tributary) (Tributary)
Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82 Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82
West Line Egress East Line Ingress West Line Egress East Line Ingress
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
| +----------------------+ | | +----------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
Egress | | Unidirectional ROADM | | Ingress Egress | | Unidirectional ROADM | | Ingress
-----------------+ | | +-------------- -----------------+ | | +--------------
skipping to change at page 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 5
Ingress | | | | Egress Ingress | | | | Egress
| | _ | | | | _ | |
| +----------------------+ | | +----------------------+ |
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
Ports #3-#42 Ports #43-82 Ports #3-#42 Ports #43-82
Egress dropped from Ingress added to Egress dropped from Ingress added to
West Line ingress East Line egress West Line ingress East Line egress
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved | | Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Add/Drops #3-42 to Line side #1 Add/Drops #3-42 to Line side #1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=1 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 | | Action=1 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #3 | | Link Local Identifier = #3 |
skipping to change at page 24, line 51 skipping to change at page 24, line 48
| Link Local Identifier = #1 | | Link Local Identifier = #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 | | Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #2 | | Link Local Identifier = #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV
If one wants to make a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field If one wants to make a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field
#1) available for all priority levels (level 0 to 7) while allowing #1) available only for highest priority level (Priority Level 0)
while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2)
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September available to all priority levels (Priority Level 7), the following
2012 encoding will express such need.
a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2) only to available
to the highest priority (Priority Level 7), the following encoding
will express such need.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0| Reserved | |0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field #1 | | Label Set Field #1 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1| Reserved | |1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field #2 | | Label Set Field #2 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. 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.
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 5
[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.
[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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
[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 WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and
Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical Communications Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical Communications
and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195. and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195.
[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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
7. Contributors 7. 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)
skipping to change at page 29, line 4 skipping to change at page 28, line 48
Infinera Infinera
Email: rrao@infinera.com Email: rrao@infinera.com
Giovanni Martinelli Giovanni Martinelli
CISCO CISCO
Email: giomarti@cisco.com Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Remi Theillaud Remi Theillaud
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Marben Marben
remi.theillaud@marben-products.com remi.theillaud@marben-products.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg M. Bernstein (ed.) Greg M. Bernstein (ed.)
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Fremont California, USA Fremont California, USA
Phone: (510) 573-2237 Phone: (510) 573-2237
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 30, line 4
Phone: +86-755-28973237 Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com Email: danli@huawei.com
Wataru Imajuku Wataru Imajuku
NTT Network Innovation Labs NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan Japan
Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315 Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Jianrui Han Jianrui Han
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base, F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972916 Phone: +86-755-28972916
Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
skipping to change at page 31, line 5 skipping to change at page 31, line 5
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding September
2012
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
120 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/