draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-17.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: June 2015 D. Li Expires: June 2015 D. Li
Huawei Huawei
W. Imajuku W. Imajuku
NTT NTT
December 29, 2014 January 20, 2015
General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-17.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 June 29, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 December
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.
Abstract Abstract
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a
wide variety of technologies. In some of these technologies network wide variety of technologies. In some of these technologies, network
elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as
asymmetric switch connectivity, non-local label assignment, and asymmetric switch connectivity, non-local label assignment, and
label range limitations on links. label range limitations on links.
This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for
general information elements representing connectivity and label general information elements representing connectivity and label
constraints as well as label availability. It is intended that constraints as well as label availability. It is intended that
protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe how protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe how
information is carried for specific uses. information is carried for specific uses.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
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......................3
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_RANGE..........................................9 2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE..........................................9
2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.........................9 2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................10
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10 2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10
2.3. Link Set Field...........................................10
2.4. Available Labels Field...................................12 2.3. Link Set Field...........................................11
2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................13 2.4. Available Labels Field...................................13
2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................14
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....................16 2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................16
2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................17 2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................17
3. Security Considerations.......................................17 3. Security Considerations.......................................17
4. IANA Considerations...........................................18 4. IANA Considerations...........................................18
5. Acknowledgments...............................................18 5. Acknowledgments...............................................18
APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................19 APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................19
A.1. Link Set Field...........................................19 A.1. Link Set Field...........................................19
A.2. Label Set Field..........................................19 A.2. Label Set Field..........................................19
A.3. Connectivity Matrix......................................20 A.3. Connectivity Matrix......................................20
A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........23 A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........23
A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels.........25 A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels.........25
6. References....................................................27 6. References....................................................27
6.1. Normative References.....................................27 6.1. Normative References.....................................27
6.2. Informative References...................................28 6.2. Informative References...................................28
7. Contributors..................................................29 7. Contributors..................................................29
Authors' Addresses...............................................30 Authors' Addresses...............................................30
Intellectual Property Statement..................................31
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS
control plane contain additional constraints on switching capability control plane contain additional constraints on switching capability
and label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must and label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must
perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the
technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON
[RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by [RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by
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 December
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.
The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the
potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches or fixed potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches or fixed
connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer. Note connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer. Note
that this matrix does not represent any particular internal blocking that this matrix does not represent any particular internal blocking
behavior but indicates which input ports and labels (e.g., behavior but indicates which input ports and labels (e.g.,
wavelengths) could possibly be connected to a particular output port wavelengths) could possibly be connected to a particular output port
and label pair. Representing internal state dependent blocking for a and label pair. Representing internal state dependent blocking for a
node is beyond the scope of this document and due to it's highly node is beyond the scope of this document and, due to its highly
implementation dependent nature would most likely not be subject to implementation-dependent nature, would most likely not be subject to
standardization in the future. The connectivity matrix is a standardization in the future. The connectivity matrix is a
conceptual M*m by N*n matrix where M represents the number of input conceptual M*m by N*n matrix where M represents the number of input
ports each with m labels and N the number of output ports each with ports each with m labels and N the number of output ports each with
n labels. n labels.
1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints 1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints
If the nature of the equipment involved in a network results in a If the nature of the equipment involved in a network results in a
requirement for non-local label assignment we can have constraints requirement for non-local label assignment, we can have constraints
based on limits imposed by the ports themselves and those that are based on limits imposed by the ports themselves and those that are
implied by the current label usage. Note that constraints such as implied by the current label usage. Note that constraints such as
these only become important when label assignment has a non-local these only become important when label assignment has a non-local
character. For example in MPLS an LSR may have a limited range of character. For example, in MPLS an LSR may have a limited range of
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. In this
advantageous to share the label assignment constraint information case, it may be advantageous to share the label assignment
for use in path computation. constraint information for use in path computation.
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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
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
The Connectivity Matrix Field represents how input ports are The Connectivity Matrix Field represents how input ports are
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.
The Connectivity Matrix is uniquely identified only by the The Connectivity Matrix is uniquely identified only by the
advertising node. There may be more than one matrix associated with advertising node. There may be more than one matrix associated with
a node as the node can partition the switch matrix into several sub- a node as the node can partition the switch matrix into several sub-
matrices for various reasons such as incremental updates, etc. When matrices for various reasons such as incremental updates, etc. When
the matrix is partitioned into sub-matrices, it is envisioned that the matrix is partitioned into sub-matrices, it is envisioned that
they are mutually exclusive to one another in representing which they are mutually exclusive to one another in representing which
ports/labels are associated with each sub-matrix. This implies that ports/labels are associated with each sub-matrix. This implies that
two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port, two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port,
dst label}. dst label}.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is: A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Conn | MatrixID | Reserved | | Conn | MatrixID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set A #1 | | Link Set A #1 |
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 26
| Additional Link set pairs as needed | | Additional Link set pairs as needed |
: to specify connectivity : : to specify connectivity :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where Where
Connectivity (Conn) (4 bit) is the device type. Connectivity (Conn) (4 bit) is the device type.
0 -- the device is fixed 0 -- the device is fixed
1 -- the device is switched(e.g., ROADM/OXC) 1 -- the device is switched (e.g., ROADM/OXC)
MatrixID represents the ID of the connectivity matrix and is an 8 MatrixID represents the ID of the connectivity matrix and is an 8
bit integer. The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port bit integer. The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port label
wavelength constraints and should not be used to identify a constraints and should not be used to identify a connectivity matrix.
connectivity matrix.
Link Set A #1 and Link Set B #1 together represent a pair of link Link Set A #1 and Link Set B #1 together represent a pair of link
sets. See Section 2.3. for a detail description of the link set sets. See Section 2.3. for a detail description of the link set
field. There are two permitted combinations for the link set field field. There are two permitted combinations for the link set field
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 In this case, the meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this
any signal that inputs a link in set A can be potentially switched case is that any signal that inputs a link in set A can be
out of an output link in set B. potentially switched 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 December
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
Port Label Restriction Field tells us what labels may or may not be Port Label Restriction Field tells us what labels may or may not be
used on a link. used on a link.
The port label restriction can be encoded as follows: More than one The port label restriction can be encoded as follows: More than one
of these fields may be needed to fully specify a complex port of these fields may be needed to fully specify a complex port
constraint. When more than one of these fields are present the constraint. When more than one of these fields are present, the
resulting restriction is the union of the restrictions expressed in resulting restriction is the union of the restrictions expressed in
each field. To indicate that a restriction applies to the port in each field. The use of the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID
general and not to a specific connectivity matrix use the reserved indicates that a restriction applies to the port, and not to a
value of 0xFF for the MatrixID. specific connectivity matrix.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID |RestrictionType| Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID |RestrictionType| Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType | | Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where: Where:
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 0xFF 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; See 0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction; See
Section 2.2.1 for details) Section 2.2.1 for details)
1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction; See Section 2.2.2 1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction; See Section 2.2.2
for details) for details)
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label 2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label
and width; See Section 2.2.3 for details) and width; See Section 2.2.3 for details)
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; See Section 2.2.4 for details) the port; See Section 2.2.4 for details)
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; See Section 2.2.5 for amongst a set of specified ports; See Section 2.2.5 for
details) details)
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.
Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictType field is an Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType field is an
optional field that describes additional restriction parameters for optional field that describes additional restriction parameters for
each RestrictionType pertaining to specific protocols. each RestrictionType pertaining to specific protocols.
2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL 2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL
In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL, The format is given by: In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL, 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 = 0 | Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 0 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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/matrix.
See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set. See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set.
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 December
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.
MaxNumChannels is a 32-bit integer.
2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE 2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE
In the case of the LABEL_RANGE, the format is given by: In the case of the LABEL_RANGE, 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 = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxLabelRange | | MaxLabelRange |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is a generalization of the waveband device. The MaxLabelRange This is a generalization of the waveband device. The MaxLabelRange
indicates the maximum width of the waveband in terms of the channels indicates the maximum width of the waveband in terms of the channels
spacing given in the Label Set Field. The corresponding label set is spacing given in the Label Set Field. The corresponding label set is
used to indicate the overall tuning range. See Section 2.6.2 for the used to indicate the overall tuning range.
explanation of label range.
MaxLabelRange is a 32-bit integer.
See Section 2.6.2 for the explanation of label range.
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 December
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
2.3 for the definition of link set. 2.3 for the definition of link set.
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 December
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 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
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. The second identifier indicates the end of the range. All the range. The second identifier indicates the end of the range. All
links with numeric values between the bounds are considered to be links with numeric values between the bounds are considered to be
part of the set. A value of zero in either position indicates that part of the set. A value of zero in either position indicates that
there is no bound on the corresponding portion of the range. Note there is no bound on the corresponding portion of the range. Note
that the Action field can be set to 0x01(Inclusive Range) only when that the Action field can be set to 0x01 (Inclusive Range) only when
unnumbered link identifier is used. identifier for unnumbered link is used.
Dir: Directionality of the Link Set (2 bits) Dir: Directionality of the Link Set (2 bits)
0 -- bidirectional 0 -- bidirectional
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
as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
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
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.
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 December
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 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where Where
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
(N<=M), then this label is advertised as available for 0, ... N-1. (N<=M), then this label is advertised as available for 0, ... N-1.
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.
2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field 2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field
The Shared Backup Labels Field consists of priority flags, and The Shared Backup Labels Field consists of priority flags, and
single variable length label set field as follows: single variable length label set field as follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where Where
skipping to change at page 14, line 38 skipping to change at page 14, line 35
The same LSP set up and pre-emption rules specified in Section 2.4 The same LSP set up and pre-emption rules specified in Section 2.4
apply here. apply here.
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 Sections 2.4. and 2.5.,
respectively. respectively. It is also used within the <SIMPLE_LABEL>,
<LABEL_RANGE>, <SIMPLE_LABEL> or <CHANNEL_COUNT>, which is defined
in Sections 2.1.1. - 2.1.4., respectively.
The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses
the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to 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.
Action specific fields are defined below. Action specific fields are defined below.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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| Num Labels | Length | | Action| Num Labels = N | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Base Label | | Base Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Action specific fields) | | (Action specific fields) |
| . . . . | | . . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: Action:
skipping to change at page 15, line 35 skipping to change at page 15, line 32
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 generally the number of labels. It has a specific Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific
meaning depending on the action value. See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 meaning depending on the action value. See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3
for details. for details. Num Labels is a 12 bit integer.
Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field. Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field.
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:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 or 1 | Num Labels | Length | |0 or 1 | Num Labels = 2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label #1 | | Label #1 |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label #N | | Label #N |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End Label | | End Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that that Start Label is the first Label in the range to be Note that that Start Label is the first Label in the range to be
included/excluded and End Label is the last label in the same range. included/excluded and End Label is the last label in the same range.
Num Labels MUST be two. Num Labels MUST be two.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set 2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set
In the case of Action = 4, the bitmap the label set format is given In the case of Action = 4, the bitmap the label set format is given
by: by:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | Num Labels | Length | | 4 | Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 17, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 35
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.
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
information and does not introduce any security issues. information and does not introduce any security issues.
However, other documents that make use of these encodings within However, other documents that make use of these encodings within
protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated
with inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
with, inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of
this information. It is expected that any such documents will this information. It is expected that any such documents will
describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate
protection. A general discussion on security in GMPLS networks can protection. A general discussion on security in GMPLS networks can
be found in [RFC5920]. be found in [RFC5920].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
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 December
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
set the Action = 1 to denote an inclusive range; the Dir = 1 to set the Action = 1 to denote an inclusive range; the Dir = 1 to
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, 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
Using the label format defined in [RFC6205], with the Grid value set Using the label format defined in [RFC6205], with the Grid value set
to indicate an ITU-T A/2 [G.694.1] DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate to indicate an ITU-T A/2 [G.694.1] DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate
100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows: 100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows:
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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 21, line 4 skipping to change at page 20, line 45
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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 December
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 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, 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 29 32-bit words. matrix as follows. This representation uses only 29 32-bit words.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #3 | | Link Local Identifier = #3 |
skipping to change at page 23, line 4 skipping to change at page 22, 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 December
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, 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 December
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
-----------------+ | | +-------------- -----------------+ | | +--------------
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
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 December
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier = #3 | | Link Local Identifier = #3 |
skipping to change at page 26, line 4 skipping to change at page 25, line 49
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 December
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Reserved | |1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field #1 | | Label Set Field #1 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| Reserved | |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field #2 | | Label Set Field #2 |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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 27, line 36 skipping to change at page 27, 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.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for [RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC
6205, March 2011. 6205, March 2011.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1",
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. RFC5440.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) -
Version 1", RFC5440.
[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.
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and
Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011. Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011.
[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 Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical
Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp.
187-195. 187-195.
[RWA-Info] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and [RWA-Info] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-info. ccamp-rwa-info.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
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 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 29, 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 December
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
Phone: (510) 573-2237 Phone: (510) 573-2237
skipping to change at page 31, line 4 skipping to change at page 31, 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 December
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
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line
IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December
2014
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 64 change blocks. 
158 lines changed or deleted 64 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/