draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-13.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-14.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: May 2014 D. Li Expires: August 2014 D. Li
Huawei Huawei
W. Imajuku W. Imajuku
NTT NTT
November 13, 2013 February 5, 2014
General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-13.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-14.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 May 13, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
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
2. Encoding.......................................................5 2. Encoding.......................................................5
2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field.................................5 2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field.................................5
2.2. Port Label Restriction Field..............................7 2.2. Port Label Restriction Field..............................7
2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL.........................................8 2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL.........................................8
2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT........................................8 2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT........................................8
2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE1.........................................9 2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE1.........................................9
2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.........................9 2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.........................9
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10 2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10
2.3. Link Set Field...........................................10 2.3. Link Set Field...........................................10
2.4. Available Labels Field...................................12 2.4. Available Labels Field...................................12
2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................13 2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................13
2.6. Label Set Field..........................................14 2.6. Label Set Field..........................................14
2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists.....................15 2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists.....................15
2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................15 2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................15
2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................16 2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................16
3. Security Considerations.......................................17 3. Security Considerations.......................................17
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 input port to reach a particular output port may be particular input port to reach a particular output port may be
limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity
between some input ports and output ports may be fixed, e.g., a between some input ports and output 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 5, line 5
labels available for use on an output port and a set of labels labels available for use on an output 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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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.
2. Encoding 2. Encoding
This section provides encodings for the information elements defined This section provides encodings for the information elements defined
in [RWA-INFO] that have applicability to WSON. The encodings are in [RWA-Info] that have applicability to WSON. The encodings are
designed to be suitable for use in the GMPLS routing protocols OSPF designed to be suitable for use in the GMPLS routing protocols OSPF
[RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307] and in the PCE protocol (PCEP) [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307] and in the PCE protocol (PCEP)
[RFC5440]. Note that the information distributed in [RFC4203] and [RFC5440]. Note that the information distributed in [RFC4203] and
[RFC5307] is arranged via the nesting of sub-TLVs within TLVs and [RFC5307] is arranged via the nesting of sub-TLVs within TLVs and
this document defines elements to be used within such constructs. this document defines elements to be used within such constructs.
Specific constructs of sub-TLVs and the nesting of sub-TLVs of the Specific constructs of sub-TLVs and the nesting of sub-TLVs of the
information element defined by this document will be defined in the information element defined by this document will be defined in the
respective protocol enhancement documents. respective protocol enhancement documents.
2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field 2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
connected to output ports for network elements. The switch and fixed connected to output 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 input and output port set pairs that have mutual minimal list of input and output 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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
parameter "dir" for Link Set A and B pairs: parameter "dir" for Link Set A and B pairs:
o Link Set A dir=input, Link Set B dir=output o Link Set A dir=input, Link Set B dir=output
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 inputs a link in set A can be potentially switched any signal that inputs a link in set A can be potentially switched
out of an output link in set B. out of an output 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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 inputs on the links in set A can potentially any signal that inputs on the links in set A can potentially
output on a link in set B, and any input signal on the links in output on a link in set B, and any input signal on the links in
set B can potentially output on a link in set A. set B can potentially output 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.
2.2. Port Label Restriction Field 2.2. Port Label Restriction Field
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
MatrixID: either is the value in the corresponding Connectivity MatrixID: either is the value in the corresponding Connectivity
Matrix field or takes the value OxFF to indicate the restriction Matrix field or takes the value OxFF to indicate the restriction
applies to the port regardless of any Connectivity Matrix. applies to the port regardless of any Connectivity Matrix.
RestrictionType can take the following values and meanings: RestrictionType can take the following values and meanings:
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)
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
2: LABEL_RANGE1 (Label range device with a movable center 2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label
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 4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once
amongst a set of specified ports) amongst a set of specified ports)
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying label set indicates the labels In this case the accompanying label set indicates the labels
permitted on the port. permitted on the port.
2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT 2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT
In the case of the CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given by: In the case of the CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given by:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 = 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.
2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE1 2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE
In the case of the LABEL_RANGE1 the GeneralPortRestrictions (or In the case of the LABEL_RANGE 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxLabelRange | | MaxLabelRange |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
the overall label range. Specific center label information can be the overall label range. Specific center label information can be
obtained from dynamic label in use information. It is assumed that obtained from dynamic label in use information. It is assumed that
both center label and range tuning can be done without causing both center label and range tuning can be done without causing
faults to existing signals. faults to existing signals.
2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT 2.2.4. 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:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 = 3 | Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 3 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxNumChannels | | MaxNumChannels |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
used at most once among the ports in the link set field. used at most once among the ports in the link set field.
2.3. Link Set Field 2.3. Link Set Field
We will frequently need to describe properties of groups of links. 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 to the label set concept of [RFC3471]. This Link Set Field is used
in the <ConnectivityMatrix>, which is defined in Section 2.1. The in the <ConnectivityMatrix>, which is defined in Section 2.1. The
information carried in a Link Set is defined by: information carried in a Link Set is defined by:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
1 -- input 1 -- input
2 -- output 2 -- output
For example in optical networks we think in terms of unidirectional For example in optical networks we think in terms of unidirectional
as well as bidirectional links. For example, label restrictions or as well as bidirectional links. For example, label restrictions or
connectivity may be different for an input port, than for its connectivity may be different for an input port, than for its
"companion" output port if one exists. Note that "interfaces" such "companion" output port if one exists. Note that "interfaces" such
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be
bidirectional. This also applies to the links advertised in various bidirectional. This also applies to the links advertised in various
link state routing protocols. link state routing protocols.
Format: The format of the link identifier (6 bits) Format: The format of the link identifier (6 bits)
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
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
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 routing, and [RFC5307] IS-IS GMPLS routing. The use of the link
local identifier format can result in more compact encodings when local identifier format can result in more compact encodings when
the assignments are done in a reasonable fashion. the assignments are done in a reasonable fashion.
2.4. Available Labels Field 2.4. Available Labels Field
The Available Labels Field consists of priority flags, and a single The Available Labels Field consists of priority flags, and a single
variable length label set field as follows: variable length label set field as follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where Where
PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which
priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order, priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order,
with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e., highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e.,
the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority
represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the
corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority
level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy, level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,
SHALL be at priority level 0. SHALL be at priority level 0.
Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix
A.5. for illustrative examples. A.5. for illustrative examples.
2.6. Label Set Field 2.6. Label Set Field
Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> or the Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> or the
<SharedBackupLabels>, which is defined in Section 2.4. and 2.5., <SharedBackupLabels>, which is defined in Section 2.4. and 2.5.,
respectively. 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 the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to
define a "bit map" type of label set. Labels are variable in length. define a "bit map" type of label set. Labels are variable in length.
The second 32 bit field is a part of the base label used as a Action specific fields are defined below.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Base Label | | Base Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action | | (Action specific fields) |
| | | . . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: Action:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2014
0 - Inclusive List 0 - Inclusive List
1 - Exclusive List 1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range 2 - Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range 3 - Exclusive Range
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
2013
4 - Bitmap Set 4 - Bitmap Set
Length is the length in bytes of the entire field. Length is the length in bytes of the entire field.
2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists 2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists
In the case of the inclusive/exclusive lists the wavelength set In the case of the inclusive/exclusive lists the wavelength set
format is given by: format is given by:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
Label #1 is the first Label to be included/excluded and Label #N is Label #1 is the first Label to be included/excluded and Label #N is
the last Label to be included/excluded. Num Labels MUST match with the last Label to be included/excluded. Num Labels MUST match with
N. N.
2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges 2.6.2. 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:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 | Length | |2 or 3 | Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start Label | | Start Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End Label | | End Label |
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
| 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
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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 field is a multiple of out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the field 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.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
This document provides general protocol independent information This document provides general protocol independent information
encodings. There is no IANA allocation request for the information encodings. There is no IANA allocation request for the information
elements defined in this document. IANA allocation requests will be elements defined in this document. IANA allocation requests will be
addressed in protocol specific documents based on the encodings addressed in protocol specific documents based on the encodings
defined here. defined here.
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 input ports that are have Suppose that we wish to describe a set of input ports that are have
link local identifiers number 3 through 42. In the link set field we link local identifiers number 3 through 42. In the link set field we
skipping to change at page 18, line 48 skipping to change at page 18, line 48
Frequency (THz) n Value bit map position Frequency (THz) n Value bit map position
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
192.0 -11 0 192.0 -11 0
192.5 -6 5 192.5 -6 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
Using the label format defined in [RFC 6205], with the Grid value Using the label format defined in [RFC6205], with the Grid value set
set to indicate an ITU-T G.694.1 DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate to indicate an ITU-T G.694.1 DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate 100GHz
100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows: this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 Labels = 40 | Length = 16 bytes | | 4 | Num Labels = 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|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 | |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.3. Connectivity Matrix A.3. Connectivity Matrix
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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
Input added to Output dropped from Input added to Output dropped from
West Line Output East Line Input West Line Output East Line Input
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
skipping to change at page 21, line 5 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
Referring to the figure we see that the Input direction of ports #3- Referring to the figure we see that the Input direction of ports #3-
#42 (add ports) can only connect to the output on port #1. While the #42 (add ports) can only connect to the output on port #1. While the
Input side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the output on Input side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the output on
ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the output on port #1 (pass through). ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the output on port #1 (pass through).
Similarly, the input direction of ports #43-#82 can only connect to Similarly, the input direction of ports #43-#82 can only connect to
the output on port #2 (line). While the input direction of port #1 the output on port #2 (line). While the input direction of port #1
can only connect to the output on ports #43-#82 (drop) or port #2 can only connect to the output on ports #43-#82 (drop) or port #2
(pass through). We can now represent this potential connectivity (pass through). We can now represent this potential connectivity
matrix as follows. This representation uses only 30 32-bit words. matrix as follows. This representation uses only 30 32-bit words.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 5
| 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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
(Tributary) (Tributary)
Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82 Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82
West Line Output East Line Input West Line Output East Line Input
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
| +----------------------+ | | +----------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
Output | | Unidirectional ROADM | | Input Output | | Unidirectional ROADM | | Input
-----------------+ | | +-------------- -----------------+ | | +--------------
<=====================| |===================< <=====================| |===================<
-----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- -----------------+ +----------------------+ +--------------
| | | |
Port #1 | | Port #2 Port #1 | | Port #2
(West Line Side) | |(East Line Side) (West Line Side) | |(East Line Side)
-----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- -----------------+ +----------------------+ +--------------
>=====================| |===================> >=====================| |===================>
-----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +-------------- -----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +--------------
Input | | | | Output Input | | | | Output
| | _ | | | | _ | |
| +----------------------+ | | +----------------------+ |
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
| |||.| | |||.| | |||.| | |||.|
vvvvv ^^^^^ vvvvv ^^^^^
Ports #3-#42 Ports #43-82 Ports #3-#42 Ports #43-82
Output dropped from Input added to Output dropped from Input added to
West Line Input East Line Output West Line Input East Line Output
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
| 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 A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels
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 only for the highest priority level (Priority Level 0) #1) available only for the highest priority level (Priority Level 0)
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2) while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2)
available to all priority levels, the following encoding will available to all priority levels, the following encoding will
express such need. 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 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved | |0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field #1 | | Label Set Field #1 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0| 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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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 26, line 33 skipping to change at page 26, line 33
applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002. applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC
6205, March 2011.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. 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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2014
[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.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) -
Version 1", RFC5440. Version 1", RFC5440.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
2013
[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[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
and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195. Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp.
187-195.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November [RWA-Info] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
2013 Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-info.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2014
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@ericsson.com Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
skipping to change at page 29, line 5 skipping to change at page 29, line 5
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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
skipping to change at page 30, line 5 skipping to change at page 30, line 5
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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
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 November Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2013 2014
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. 48 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 94 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/