draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-19.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-20.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
February 3, 2015 February 23, 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-19.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-20.txt
Abstract
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a
wide variety of technologies. In some of these technologies, network
elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as
asymmetric switch connectivity, non-local label assignment, and
label range limitations on links.
This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for
general information elements representing connectivity and label
constraints as well as label availability. It is intended that
protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe how
information is carried for specific uses.
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.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015
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 3, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 February
2015
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
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a
wide variety of technologies. In some of these technologies, network
elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as
asymmetric switch connectivity, non-local label assignment, and
label range limitations on links.
This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for
general information elements representing connectivity and label
constraints as well as label availability. It is intended that
protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe how
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......................3 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........................................9 2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT........................................9
2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE..........................................9 2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE..........................................9
2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................10
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT........................10
2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10 2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10
2.3. Link Set Field...........................................11 2.3. Link Set Field...........................................11
2.4. Available Labels Field...................................13 2.4. Available Labels Field...................................13
2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................14 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
6.2. Informative References...................................28 6.2. Informative References...................................28
7. Contributors..................................................29 7. Contributors..................................................29
Authors' Addresses...............................................30 Authors' Addresses...............................................30
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 Wavelength
[RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by Switched Optical Networks (WSON) [RFC6163]. Such constraints can
link label availability in path computation and label assignment. lead to the requirement for link by 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 February
2015
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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
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. In this label assignment process is not local to a single node. In this
case, it may be advantageous to share the label assignment case, it may be advantageous to share the label assignment
constraint information 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
used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More
dynamic information is contained in the information on available
labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port
in general or to a specific connectivity matrix for increased
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More
dynamic information is contained in the information on available
labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port
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)
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
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 Field associated with advertising node. There may be more than one Field associated with a
a node as a node can partition the switch matrix into several sub- node as a node can partition the switch matrix into several sub-
matrices. This partitioning is primarily to limit the size of any matrices. This partitioning is primarily to limit the size of any
individual information element used to represent the matrix and to individual information element used to represent the matrix and to
enable incremental updates. When the matrix is partitioned into enable incremental updates. When the matrix is partitioned into sub-
sub-matrices, each sub-matrix will be mutually exclusive to matrices, each sub-matrix will be mutually exclusive to one another
one another in representing which ports/labels are associated with in representing which ports/labels are associated with each sub-
each sub-matrix. This implies that two matrices will not have the matrix. This implies that two matrices will not have the same {src
same {src port, src label, dst port, dst label}. port, src label, dst port, dst label}.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015
Each sub-matrix is identified via a different Matrix ID which MUST Each sub-matrix is identified via a different Matrix ID which MUST
represent a unique combination of {src port, src label, dst port, represent a unique combination of {src port, src label, dst port,
dst label}. dst label}.
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 February
2015
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 |
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set B #1 : | Link Set B #1 :
: : : : : :
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
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
In this case, the meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this In this case, 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 case is that any signal that inputs a link in set A can be
potentially switched 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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
o Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional
The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that
any signal that 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. If link set A is set B can potentially output on a link in set A. If link set A is
an input and link set B is an output for a signal, then it an input and link set B is an output for a signal, then it
implies that link set A is an output and link set B is an input implies that link set A is an output and link set B is an input
for that signal. for that signal.
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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 37
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. The use of the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID each field. The use of the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID
indicates that a restriction applies to the port, and not to a indicates that a restriction applies to the port, and not to a
specific connectivity matrix. 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 | RstType | SwitchingCap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType | | Additional Restriction Parameters per Restriction Type |
: : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 0xFF 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: RstType (Restriction Type) can take the following values and
meanings:
0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction; See
Section 2.2.1 for details)
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction; See
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)
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 SwitchingCap (Switching Capability) is defined in [RFC4203] and
[RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the type of Encoding in [RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the
labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as well as the type of labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as
interface type to which these restrictions apply. well as the interface type to which these restrictions apply.
Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType 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 | SwitchingCap | 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/matrix. 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.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
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:
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 | SwitchingCap | 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. 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. used to indicate the overall tuning range.
skipping to change at page 10, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
2015 2015
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:
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 | SwitchingCap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaxNumChannels | | MaxNumChannels |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Set Field | | Label Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate
labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that
can be simultaneously used on the port. can be simultaneously used on the port.
See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set. See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set.
2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity 2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity
In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the format is given by: In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the format is given by:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MatrixID | RstType = 4 | Switching Cap | Encoding | | MatrixID | RstType = 4 | SwitchingCap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Set Field | | Link Set Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this case the accompanying link set indicates that a label may be In this case the accompanying link set indicates that a label may be
used at most once among the ports in the link set field. See Section used at most once among the ports in the link set field. See Section
2.3 for the definition of link set. 2.3 for the definition of link set.
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
skipping to change at page 16, line 45 skipping to change at page 16, line 45
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|2 or 3 | Num Labels | Length | |2 or 3 | Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start Label | | Start Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End Label | | End Label |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that that Start Label is the first Label in the range to be Note 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 February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
2015 2015
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:
skipping to change at page 17, line 35 skipping to change at page 17, line 35
| 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.
The size of the bit map is Num Label bits, but the bit map is padded The size of the bit map is Num Labels bits, but the bit map is
out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the field is a multiple of padded out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the field is a
four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e., those in multiple of four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e.,
positions (Num Labels) and beyond) SHOULD be set to zero and MUST be those in positions (Num Labels) and beyond) SHOULD be set to zero
ignored. and MUST be 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
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
skipping to change at page 28, line 21 skipping to change at page 28, line 21
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1",
RFC5440. 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.
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 68 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/