draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10.txt 
Network Working Group Tomohiro Otani(Ed.) Network Working Group Tomohiro Otani(Ed.)
Internet Draft KDDI Internet Draft KDDI
Updates: RFC3471 Dan Li(Ed.) Updates: 3471(if approved) Dan Li(Ed.)
Category: Standards Track Huawei Category: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: June 2011 December 9, 2010 Expires: June 2011 December 13, 2010
Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers Routers
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, publication of this document. Please review these documents
as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
document. Code Components extracted from this document must include to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract Abstract
Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving and as a Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving and as a
consequence new equipment providing lambda switching capability has consequence new equipment providing lambda switching capability has
been developed and is currently being deployed. [RFC3471] has been developed and is currently being deployed.
defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only has
significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength semantics Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is a family of protocols that can be used
is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability in a to operate networks built from a range of technologies including
network composed of next generation lambda switch-capable equipment, wavelength (or lambda) switching. For this purpose, GMPLS defined
this document defines a standard lambda label format, which is that a wavelength label only has significance between two neighbors
compliant with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) or [G.694.2](CWDM-grid). and global wavelength semantics are not considered.
This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the label format when Lambda In order to facilitate interoperability in a network composed of
Switching is requested in an all optical network. next generation lambda switch-capable equipment, this document
defines a standard lambda label format that is compliant with Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing and Coarse Wavelength Division
Multiplexing grids defined by the International Telecommunication
Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector. The label format
defined in this document can be used in GMPLS signaling and routing
protocols.
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 2
2. Assumed network model and related problem statement........... 3
3. Label Related Formats ........................................ 6
3.1. Wavelength Labels ....................................... 6
3.2. DWDM Wavelength Label ................................... 7
3.3. CWDM Wavelength Label ................................... 8
4. Security Considerations ..................................... 10
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 10
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 10
7. References .................................................. 10
7.1. Normative References ................................... 10
7.2. Informative References ................................. 11
8. Author's Address ............................................ 12
9. Appendix A. DWDM Example .................................... 13
10. Appendix B. CWDM Example ................................... 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS
from supporting only packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) from supporting only packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC)
interfaces and switching to also include support for four new interfaces and switching to also include support for four new
classes of interfaces and switching: classes of interfaces and switching:
o Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) o Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
o Time-Division Multiplex (TDM) o Time-Division Multiplex (TDM)
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
This document presents details that are specific to the use of GMPLS This document presents details that are specific to the use of GMPLS
with Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) equipment. Technologies such as with Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) equipment. Technologies such as
Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplex (ROADM) and Wavelength Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplex (ROADM) and Wavelength
Cross-Connect (WXC) operate at the wavelength switching level. Cross-Connect (WXC) operate at the wavelength switching level.
[RFC3471] has defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only [RFC3471] has defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only
has significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength has significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength
semantics is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability semantics is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability
in a network composed of lambda switch-capable equipment, this in a network composed of lambda switch-capable equipment, this
document defines a standard lambda label format, which is compliant document defines a standard lambda label format, which is compliant
with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) or [G.694.2](CWDM-grid). with both [G.694.1](Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)-
grid) or [G.694.2](Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CWDM)-
grid).
2. Assumed network model and related problem statement 2. Assumed Network Model and Related Problem Statement
Figure 1 depicts an all-optically switched network consisting of Figure 1 depicts an all-optically switched network consisting of
different vendor's optical network domains. Vendor A's network different vendors' optical network domains. Vendor A's network
consists of ROADM or WXC, and vendor B's network consists of number consists of ROADM or WXC, and vendor B's network consists of a number
of photonic cross-connect (PXC) and Dense wavelength division of photonic cross-connect (PXC) and DWDM multiplexer & demultiplexer,
multiplexing (DWDM) multiplexer & demultiplexer, otherwise both otherwise both vendors' networks might be based on the same
vendors' networks might be based on the same technology. technology.
In this case, the use of standardized wavelength label information is In this case, the use of standardized wavelength label information is
quite significant to establish a wavelength-based LSP. It is also an quite significant to establish a wavelength-based LSP. It is also an
important constraint when conducting CSPF calculation for use by important constraint when conducting CSPF calculation for use by
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling,
[RFC3473]. The way the Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) is [RFC3473]. The way the Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) is
performed is outside the scope of this document. performed is outside the scope of this document.
It is needless to say, a LSP must be appropriately provisioned It is needless to say, an LSP must be appropriately provisioned
between a selected pair of ports not only within Domain A but also between a selected pair of ports not only within Domain A but also
over multiple domains satisfying wavelength constraints. over multiple domains satisfying wavelength constraints.
Figure 2 illustrates in detail the interconnection between Domain A Figure 2 illustrates in detail the interconnection between Domain A
and Domain B. and Domain B.
| |
Domain A (or Vendor A) | Domain B (or Vendor B) Domain A (or Vendor A) | Domain B (or Vendor B)
| |
Node-1 Node-2 | Node-6 Node-7 Node-1 Node-2 | Node-6 Node-7
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
In the scenario of Figure 1, consider the setting up of a In the scenario of Figure 1, consider the setting up of a
bidirectional LSP from ingress switch 1 to egress switch 9 using bidirectional LSP from ingress switch 1 to egress switch 9 using
GMPLS RSVP-TE. In order to satisfy wavelength continuity constraint, GMPLS RSVP-TE. In order to satisfy wavelength continuity constraint,
a fixed wavelength (lambda 1) needs to be used in domain A and domain a fixed wavelength (lambda 1) needs to be used in domain A and domain
B. A Path message will be used for signaling. The Path message will B. A Path message will be used for signaling. The Path message will
contain the Upstream_Label object and a Label_Set object; both contain the Upstream_Label object and a Label_Set object; both
containing the same value. The Label_Set object is made by only one containing the same value. The Label_Set object is made by only one
sub channel that must be same as the Upstream_Label object. The Path sub channel that must be same as the Upstream_Label object. The Path
setup will continue downstream to switch 9 by configuring each lambda setup will continue downstream to switch 9 by configuring each lambda
switch based on the wavelength label. If a node has a tunable switch based on the wavelength label. If a node has a tunable
wavelength transponder, the tuning wavelength is considered as a part wavelength transponder, the tuning wavelength is considered as a part
of wavelength switching operation. of wavelength switching operation.
Not using a standardized label would add undue burden on the operator Not using a standardized label would add undue burden on the operator
to enforce policy as each manufacturer may decide on a different to enforce policy as each manufacturer may decide on a different
representation and therefore each domain may have its own label representation and therefore each domain may have its own label
formats. Moreover, manual provisioning may lead to misconfiguration formats. Moreover, manual provisioning may lead to misconfiguration
if domain-specific labels are used. if domain-specific labels are used.
Therefore, a wavelength label should be standardized in order to Therefore, a wavelength label should be standardized in order to
allow interoperability between multiple domains; otherwise allow interoperability between multiple domains; otherwise
appropriate existing labels are identified in support of wavelength appropriate existing labels are identified in support of wavelength
availability. As identical wavelength information, the ITU-T availability. As identical wavelength information, the ITU-T
frequency grid specified in [G.694.1] for Dense WDM (DWDM) and frequency grid specified in [G.694.1] for DWDM and wavelength
wavelength information in [G.694.2] for Coarse WDM (CWDM) are used by information in [G.694.2] for CWDM are used by Label Switching Routers
LSRs and should be followed as a wavelength label. (LSRs) and should be followed as a wavelength label.
3. Label Related Formats 3. Label Related Formats
To deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time To deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time
domains, several new forms of "label" have been defined in [RFC3471]. domains, several new forms of "label" have been defined in [RFC3471].
This section contains a definition of a Wavelength label based on This section contains a definition of a Wavelength label based on
[G.694.1] or [G.694.2] for use by LSC LSRs. [G.694.1] or [G.694.2] for use by LSC LSRs.
3.1. Wavelength Labels 3.1. Wavelength Labels
In section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471], a Wavelength label is defined to In section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471], a Wavelength label is defined to
have significance between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to have significance between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to
convert the received value into a value that has local significance. convert the received value into a value that has local significance.
We do not need to define a new type as the information stored is
either a port label or a wavelength label. Only the wavelength label
as below needs to be defined.
LSC equipment uses multiple wavelengths controlled by a single LSC equipment uses multiple wavelengths controlled by a single
control channel. In a case, the label indicates the wavelength to be control channel. In a case, the label indicates the wavelength to be
used for the LSP. This document defines a standardize wavelength used for the LSP. This document defines a standardize wavelength
label format. As an example of wavelength values, the reader is label format. As an example of wavelength values, the reader is
referred to [G.694.1] which lists the frequencies from the ITU-T DWDM referred to [G.694.1] which lists the frequencies from the ITU-T DWDM
frequency grid. The same can be done for CWDM technology by using frequency grid. The same can be done for CWDM technology by using
the wavelength defined in [G.694.2]. the wavelength defined in [G.694.2].
Since the ITU-T DWDM grid is based on nominal central frequencies, we Since the ITU-T DWDM grid is based on nominal central frequencies, we
need to indicate the appropriate table, the channel spacing in the need to indicate the appropriate table, the channel spacing in the
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special
value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any
Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the
corresponding LSP. corresponding LSP.
(4) n: 16 bits (4) n: 16 bits
n is a two's-complement integer. The value used to compute the n is a two's-complement integer. The value used to compute the
wavelength as shown above. wavelength as shown above.
We do not need to define a new type as the information stored is
either a port label or a wavelength label. Only the wavelength label
as above needs to be defined.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to [RFC3473]. This document introduces no new security considerations to [RFC3471]
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, and [RFC3473]. For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. IANA is requested to add
three new subregistries to track the codepoints (Grid and C.S.) used
in the DWDM and CWDM Wavelength Labels, which are described in the
following sections.
5.1. Grid Subregistry
Initial entries in this subregistry are as follows:
Value Grid Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [This.I-D]
1 ITU-T DWDM [This.I-D]
2 ITU-T CWDM [This.I-D]
3-7 Not assigned at this time [This.I-D]
New values are assigned according to Standards Action.
5.2. DWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry
Initial entries in this subregistry are as follows:
Value Channel Spacing (GHz) Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [This.I-D]
1 100 [This.I-D]
2 50 [This.I-D]
3 25 [This.I-D]
4 12.5 [This.I-D]
5-15 Not assigned at this time [This.I-D]
New values are assigned according to Standards Action.
5.3. CWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry
Initial entries in this subregistry are as follows:
Value Channel Spacing (nm) Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [This.I-D]
1 20 [This.I-D]
2-15 Not assigned at this time [This.I-D]
New values are assigned according to Standards Action.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, Lawrence The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, Lawrence
Mao, Zafar Ali and Daniele Ceccarelli for the discussion and their Mao, Zafar Ali and Daniele Ceccarelli for the discussion and their
comments. comments.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January
2003. 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic (MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM [G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: DWDM frequency grid", June 2002. applications: DWDM frequency grid", June 2002.
[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, "Spectral grids for WDM [G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid", December 2003. applications: CWDM wavelength grid", December 2003.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
8. Author's Address 8. Authors' Address
Tomohiro Otani Tomohiro Otani
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishishinjuku Shinjuku-ku 2-3-2 Nishishinjuku Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo, 163-8003, Japan Tokyo, 163-8003, Japan
Phone: +81-3-3347-6006 Phone: +81-3-3347-6006
Email: tm-otani@kddi.com Email: tm-otani@kddi.com
Richard Rabbat Richard Rabbat
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu
Sidney Shiba Sidney Shiba
Email: sidney.shiba@yahoo.com Email: sidney.shiba@att.net
Hongxiang Guo Hongxiang Guo
Email: hongxiang.guo@gmail.com Email: hongxiang.guo@gmail.com
Keiji Miyazaki Keiji Miyazaki
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
4-1-1 Kotanaka Nakahara-ku, 4-1-1 Kotanaka Nakahara-ku,
Kawasaki Kanagawa, 211-8588, Japan Kawasaki Kanagawa, 211-8588, Japan
Phone: +81-44-754-2765 Phone: +81-44-754-2765
Email: miyazaki.keiji@jp.fujitsu.com Email: miyazaki.keiji@jp.fujitsu.com
skipping to change at page 13, line 44 skipping to change at page 14, line 44
n = (193.35-193.1)/0.05 = 5 n = (193.35-193.1)/0.05 = 5
10. Appendix B. CWDM Example 10. Appendix B. CWDM Example
The network displayed in figure 1 can be used also to display an The network displayed in figure 1 can be used also to display an
example of signaling using the Wavelength Label in a CWDM example of signaling using the Wavelength Label in a CWDM
environment. environment.
This time the signaling of an LSP from Node 4 to Node 7 is This time the signaling of an LSP from Node 4 to Node 7 is
considered. Such LSP exploits the CWDM ITU-T grid with a 20nm considered. Such LSP exploits the CWDM ITU-T grid with a 20nm channel
channel spacing and is to established using wavelength equal to 1331 spacing and is to established using wavelength equal to 1331 nm.
nm.
Node 4 signals the LSP via a Path message including a Wavelength Node 4 signals the LSP via a Path message including a Wavelength
Label structured as defined in section 4.3: Label structured as defined in section 4.3:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n | |Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

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