CCAMP Working Group                Eric Mannie (KPNQwest) - Editor
   Internet Draft            Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - Editor

   Expiration Date: December 2002
                                             Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
                                         Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
                                              Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
                                                   Lou Berger (Movaz)
                                               Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
                                                 Angela Chiu (Celion)
                                                 John Drake (Calient)
                                                 Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
                                            Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
                                               Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
                                             Juergen Heiles (Siemens)
                                               Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
                                           Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)
                                           Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
                                                    Fong Liaw (Solas)
                                                 Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
                                             Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
                                       Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
                                           Mike Raftelis (White Rock)
                                           Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
                                              Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
                                              Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
                                             Vishal Sharma (Metanoia)
                                               George Swallow (Cisco)
                                                 Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
                                                   Eve Varma (Lucent)
                                             Maarten Vissers (Lucent)
                                                Yangguang Xu (Lucent)

                                                            June February 2003                         August 2002

         Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for
                           SONET and SDH Control

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
   its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may
   also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
   as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors                                       1
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Abstract

   This document is a companion to the Generalized Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the SONET/SDH Synchronous
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
   technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling.

1. Introduction

   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS from supporting packet
   (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching to
   include support of four new classes of interfaces and switching:
   Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex (TDM),
   Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC). A
   functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed
   to support the new classes of interfaces and switching is provided
   in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-TE specific formats
   and mechanisms needed to support all five classes of interfaces,
   and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [GMPLS-LDP]. This document
   presents details that are specific to SONET/SDH. Per [GMPLS-SIG],
   SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the signaling
   protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
   in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters

   This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
   The protocol specific formats, for the SDH/SONET-specific RSVP-TE
   objects and CR-LDP TLVs

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors                                   1
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

Contributors

   Contributors are described in sections 2.2 listed by alphabetical order.

     Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
     Lorenzstrasse 10
     70435 Stuttgart, Germany
     Phone: +49 711 821-33744
     Email: stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de

     Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel Networks Corp.)
     P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
     Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
     Phone: +1 613 763-4534
     Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com

     Ayan Banerjee (Calient Networks)
     5853 Rue Ferrari
     San Jose, CA 95138, USA
     Phone: +1 408 972-3645
     Email: abanerjee@calient.net

     Lou Berger (Movaz Networks, Inc.)
     7926 Jones Branch Drive
     Suite 615
     McLean VA, 22102, USA
     Phone: +1 703 847-1801
     Email: lberger@movaz.com

     Greg Bernstein (Ciena Corporation)
     10480 Ridgeview Court
     Cupertino, CA 94014, USA
     Phone: +1 408 366-4713
     Email: greg@ciena.com

     Angela Chiu (Celion Networks)
     One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
     Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658, USA
     Phone: +1 732 747 9987
     Email: angela.chiu@celion.com

     John Drake (Calient Networks)
     5853 Rue Ferrari
     San Jose, CA 95138, USA
     Phone: +1 408 972-3720
     Email: jdrake@calient.net

     Yanhe Fan (Axiowave Networks, Inc.)
     100 Nickerson Road
     Marlborough, MA 01752, USA
     Phone: +1 508 460-6969 Ext. 627
     Email: yfan@axiowave.com

     Michele Fontana (Alcatel)

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      2
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     Via Trento 30,
     I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
     Phone: +39 039 686-7053
     Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it

     Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
     Via Trento 30,
     I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
     Phone: +39 039 686-7060
     Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it

     Juergen Heiles (Siemens AG)
     Hofmannstr. 51
     D-81379 Munich, Germany
     Phone: +49 89 722-48664
     Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de

     Suresh Katukam (Cisco Systems)
     1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
     Petaluma, CA 94954-6515, USA
     Email: skatukam@cisco.com

     Kireeti Kompella (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
     1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
     Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
     Email: kireeti@juniper.net

     Jonathan P. Lang (Calient Networks)
     25 Castilian
     Goleta, CA 93117, USA
     Email: jplang@calient.net

     Fong Liaw (Solas Research)
     Email: fongliaw@yahoo.com

     Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
     101 Crawfords Corner Rd
     Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
     Phone: +1 732 949-5141
     Email: zwlin@lucent.com

     Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
     Email: ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com

     Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium, Inc.)
     2 Crescent Place
     P.O. Box 901
     Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
     Phone: +1 732 923-4254
     Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com

     Mike Raftelis (White Rock Networks)
     18111 Preston Road Suite 900
     Dallas, TX 75252, USA

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      3
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     Phone: +1 972 588-3728
     Email: mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com

     Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium, Inc.)
     2 Crescent Place
     P.O. Box 901
     Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
     Phone: +1 732 923 4237
     Email: braja@tellium.com

     Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
     1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
     Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
     Email: yakov@juniper.net

     Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
     2 Crescent Place
     P.O. Box 901
     Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
     Phone: +1 732 923 4264
     Email: dsaha@tellium.com

     Vishal Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
     335 Elan Village Lane
     San Jose, CA 95134, USA
     Phone: +1 408 943-1794
     Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com

     George Swallow (Cisco Systems, Inc.)
     250 Apollo Drive
     Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA
     Voice: +1 978 244-8143
     Email: swallow@cisco.com

     Z. Bo Tang (Tellium, Inc.)
     2 Crescent Place
     P.O. Box 901
     Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
     Phone: +1 732 923-4231
     Email: btang@tellium.com

     Eve Varma (Lucent)
     101 Crawfords Corner Rd
     Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
     Phone: +1 732 949-8559
     Email: evarma@lucent.com

     Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
     21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
     North Andover, MA 01845, USA
     Email: xuyg@lucent.com

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      4
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

1. Introduction

   As described in [GMPLS-ARCH], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends
   MPLS from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC)
   interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of
   interfaces and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-
   Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-
   Switch Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions
   to MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces
   and switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes
   RSVP-TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five
   classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in
   [GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to
   Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
   (SDH). Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried
   in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
   in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in ANSI
   [T1.105], ITU-T [G.707] as well as [GMPLS-SIG], [GMPLS-RSVP] and
   [GMPLS-LDP]. The following abbreviations are used in this document:

     DCC: Data Communications Channel.
     LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container
     HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container
     MS: Multiplex Section.
     MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead.
     POH: Path overhead.
     RS: Regenerator Section.
     RSOH: Regenerator section overhead.
     SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy.
     SOH: Section overhead.
     SONET: Synchronous Optical Network.
     SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope.
     STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH).
     STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET).
      VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH).
      VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET).

2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters

   This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
   The protocol specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE
   objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3
   respectively.

   These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities
   for SONET (ANSI T1.105) ANSI [T1.105] and SDH (ITU-T G.707) ITU-T [G.707] such as
   concatenation and transparency. Some extra non-standard
   capabilities are defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]. Other documents
   could may further
   enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance,

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      5
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   signaling for SDH over PDH (ITU-T G.832), ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0
   (ITU-T G.708) ITU-T G.708
   interfaces could be defined.

   The traffic parameters defined hereafter MUST be used when
   SONET/SDH is specified in the LSP Encoding Type field of a
   Generalized Label Request [GMPLS-SIG].

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          2
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

   The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH is are organized as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Signal Type  |      RCC      |              NCC              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Transparency (T)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Profile (P)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Annex 1 defines lists examples of SONET and SDH signal coding.

   Signal Type (ST): 8 bits

     This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that
     comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied
     successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal
     being actually requested for the LSP.

     Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if
     zero, except
     MT the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is
     ignored if equal to one.

     Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order:

      - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC
        fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal,
        resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal.
      - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can
        be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary
        Signal, or on the contiguously Signal resulting in
        a virtually concatenated signal obtained
        from the previous phase (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]). signal.
      - Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field)
        can be optionally specified when requesting a frame as
        signal rather than an SPE or VC based
        signal (by using the Transparency field). signal.
      - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
        optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or
        on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first
        phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from
        the second phase, or on these signals combined with some
        transparency.

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002          3
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,  Feb. 2003      6
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are:

       Value  Type (Elementary Signal)
       -----  -----------------  ------------------------
        1     VT1.5  SPE / VC-11
        2     VT2    SPE / VC-12
        3     VT3    SPE
        4     VT6    SPE / VC-2
        5     STS-1  SPE / VC-3
        6     STS-3c SPE / VC-4
        7     STS-1      / STM-0   (only when requesting transparency)
        8     STS-3      / STM-1   (only when requesting transparency)
        9     STS-12     / STM-4   (only when requesting transparency)
        10    STS-48     / STM-16  (only when requesting transparency)
        11    STS-192    / STM-64  (only when requesting transparency)
        12    STS-768    / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency)

     A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead
     of coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs.
     This is done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET
     and SDH signaling.

     Appendix 1 adds one more signal type (optional). Refer (optional) to [GMPLS-
     SDH-SONET-EXT] for an extended set of signal type values beyond the signal types as defined in T1.105/G.707. above values.

   Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits

     This field is used to request and sometimes negotiate (see
     [GMPLS-SDH-SONET-EXT]) the optional SONET/SDH contiguous
     concatenation of the Elementary Signal.

     This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the
     support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation.
     Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice.

     These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream
     node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it
     supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use
     according to its own rules.

     A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag
     chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any
     supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document
     scope. A downstream node that doesnt support any of the
     concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP
     request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it
     doesnt support contiguous concatenation at all.

     The

     When several flags have been set, the upstream node knows which retrieves
     the (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream
     node chosen has selected by looking at the position indicated by the
     first label and the number of label(s) as returned by the
     downstream node.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          4
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002 node (see also Section 3).

     The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous
     concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      7
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is
     requested.

     The following flag is defined:

         Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation.

     Flag 1 indicates that only the standard SONET/SDH contiguous
     concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707 [T1.105]/[G.707] is supported. Note
     that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for
     extensions, if not used they must be set to zero when sent, and
     should be ignored when received.

     See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET
     contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of
     components is a multiple of three.

     Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of contiguous
     concatenation types beyond the contiguous concatenation types as
     defined in T1.105/G.707.

   Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH SPEs/VCs SONET SPEs/SDH VCs
     (i.e. Elementary Signal) that are requested to be concatenated,
     as specified in the RCC field.

     Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the
     elementary signal
     Elementary Signal to use must always be an STS-3c SPE signal
     type and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This
     allows also facilitating the interworking between SONET and
     SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation
     of three STS-1 SPEs cannot can not be requested because according to
     this specification, this type of signal must be coded using the
     STS-3c SPE signal type.

     Note 2: when requesting a transparent STM-N/STS-N STS-N/STM-N signal
     limited to a single contiguously concatenated VC-4-Nc/STS-Nc-
     SPE, STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-
     Nc, the signal type must be STM-N/STS-N, STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and
     NCC set to 1.

     This

     The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
     concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular,
     this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
     requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
     send,
     sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value
     different from 0 must imply a number of contiguous components
     greater than 1. The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
     concatenation being requested in the RCC field.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          5
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

   Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of signals that are requested
     to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same
     type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for
     which signal types are defined in this document, i.e. VT1.5
     SPE, VT2 SPE, VT3 SPE, VT6 SPE, STS-1 SPE, STS-3c SPE, VC-11,
     VC-12, VC-2, VC-3
     VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-
     1_SPE/VC-3 or VC-4. STS-3c_SPE/VC-4.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003      8
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no
     virtual concatenation is requested.

     Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of signals that
     can be virtually concatenated beyond the virtual concatenation as
     defined in T1.105/G.707.

   Multiplier (MT): 16 bits

     This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
     requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These
     signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or
     identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical
     virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals
     belong thus to the same LSP.

     The distinction between the components of multiple virtually
     concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that
     are specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must
     describe the first component (set of individual signals
     belonging to the first virtual concatenated signal), the second
     set must describe the second component (set of individual
     signals belonging to the second virtual concatenated signal)
     and so on.

     This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly
     one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and
     egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces
     on which the LSP will be established can support the requested
     multiplier value. If the requested values can not be supported,
     the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message
     (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

     Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a
     PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

     Note 1: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited
     to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
     multiplier field must be equal to 1 (only valid value).

   Transparency (T): 32 bits

     This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
     transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to
     provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations
     are necessarily valid. The default value for this field is
     zero, i.e. no transparency requested.

     Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this
     signaling specification, is only applicable to the fields in
     the SONET/SDH frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the
     fields in the Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead
     (LOH). In the SDH case, these are the fields in the Regenerator
     Section Overhead (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH),
     and the pointer fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer
     fields are part of the LOH.

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002          6
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,  Feb. 2003      9
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using
     the following Signal Types: STM-0, STM-1, STS-1/STM-0, STS-3/STM-1, STS-12/
     STM-4, STM-16, STM-
     64, STM-256, STS-1, STS-3, STS-12, STS-48, STS-192, STS-48/STM-16, STS-192/STM-64 and STS-
     768. STS-768/STM-256. At
     least one transparency type must be specified when requesting
     such a signal type.

     Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these
     overheads must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the
     LSP. An ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these
     overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR
     without any change. From the ingress and egress LSRs point of
     views, these fields must be seen as unmodified.

     Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the
     initiating and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between
     intermediate LSRs.

     The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports
     the requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup
     the transparency process to be applied in at each intermediate
     LSR.

     The different transparency flags are the following:

        Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer.
        Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer.

     Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved, they
     should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when
     received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding
     transparency is requested.

     Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
     the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
     the requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be
     supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/ NOTIFICATION
     message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

     Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the
     entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
     pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator
     Section layer transparency all other flags must be ignored.

     Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the
     LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
     pointers cannot be adjusted.

     Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of transparency
     types beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707.

   Profile (P) (P): 32 bits

     This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that
     must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring
     capabilities.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     10
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD
     be set to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when
     received.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          7
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

     In the future TLV based extensions may be created.

2.2. RSVP-TE Details

   For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects.  The same format is
   used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The
   content of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The
   objects have the following class and type:

    For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707:

    SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (by IANA)
    SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (by IANA)

   There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC.
   Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the
   Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service
   fragment is used, see [RFC2210].

   For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC
   object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the
   contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding
   Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with
   a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be
   generated.

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with
   a "Traffic Control Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see
   [RFC2205]).

   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
   node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control
   Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).

   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST
   generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service
   unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).

2.3. CR-LDP Details

   For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV.  The content of the TLV is

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     11
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the
   following format:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|          Type             |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: TBA
   (by IANA).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          8
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message
   with a "Resource Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]).

   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
   node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource
   Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]).

   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST
   generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable"
   status code (see [RFC3212]).

3. SDH and SONET Labels

   SDH and SDH Labels

   SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure, with the SONET
   multiplex structure being a subset of the SDH multiplex structure.
   These two Both
   structures are trees whose roots are respectively an
   STM-N STS-N or an STS-N;
   STM-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported
   via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an
   ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e. a VC-x, a VT-x SPE or VTx SPE,
   an STS-x SPE. An SDH/SONET SPE or a VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the exact
   position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular
   VC-x, VT-x SPE or VTx SPE, STS-x SPE
   or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure.
   SDH and SONET and SDH labels
   are carried in the Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. [GMPLS-
   LDP].

   Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear
   logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear
   after any possible interleaving.

   These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to
   create unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET
   multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH
   multiplexing structure, the The same format of
   label is used for SDH SONET and SONET. SDH. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a
   label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs.
   This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is
   used.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     12
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
   labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.

   In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the
   Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied
   by the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we
   mean the one having the lowest label (value) when compared as
   integer values, i.e. the time-slot occupied by the first component
   signal of the concatenated signal encountered when descending the
   tree.

   In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all
   labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates the
   first time-slot occupied by a component of the virtually
   concatenated signal. The order of the labels must reflect the
   order of the payloads to concatenate (not the physical order of
   time-slots). The above representation limits virtual concatenation
   to remain within a single (component) link; it imposes as such a
   restriction compared to the G.707/T1.105 ANSI [T1.105]/ITU-T [G.707]
   recommendations.

   The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each
   virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths.
   Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over
   the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This
   is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link.
   Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is
   indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having
   its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002          9
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002
   between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then
   be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated).

   In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform),
   the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the
   Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually
   concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the time-
   slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the
   second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the
   second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
   representation limits multiplication to remain within a single
   (component) link.

   The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in G.707 [G.707]
   sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering.  Note that
   the higher order numbering scheme defined in G.707 [G.707] sections
   7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     13
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the
   parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as
   numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the
   multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to
   indicate a non-significant or ignored field.

   When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context
   it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when
   received.

   When a hierarchy of SDH/SONET SONET/SDH LSPs is used, an a higher order LSP
   with a given bandwidth can be used to carry lower order LSPs.  The
   Remember here that a higher order LSP is established through a
   SONET/SDH higher order path layer network and a lower order LSP,
   through a SONET/SDH lower order path layer network (see also ITU-T
   G.803, Section 3 for the corresponding definitions). In this
   context, the higher order
   SDH/SONET SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual
   link" with a given bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a
   Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SDH/SONET SONET/SDH LSP can be
   established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local
   to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label (i.e. the S, U
   and K fields) is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e. the
   label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the higher lower
   order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that
   label (i.e. the L and M fields) is non-significant and is set to
   zero, i.e. the label is "S,U,K,0,0".

   For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs. In
   that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3
   LSP for the lower order LSPs will have S, U and K set to zero,
   i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the
   signal allocated in that VC-3.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         10
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

   In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing VC-
   12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent
   the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used,
   i.e. per layer network signaling.

   The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows:

     1. S=1->N is the index of a particular AUG-1/STS-3 STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
     STM-N/STS-N
     STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0)
     and SONET STS-N
     (N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 STS-1 and
     STS-1.
     STM-0.

     2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular VC-3/STS-1 SPE STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
     AUG-1/STS-3.
     STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH
     STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 STS-1 and STS-1. STM-0.

     3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is
     only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s and TUG-3s. K must be
     0 and ignored in all other cases.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     14
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

     4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular TUG-2/VT Group VT_Group/TUG-2 within a
     TUG-3, VC-3 an
     STS-1_SPE/TUG-3 or STS-1 SPE. VC-3. L must be 0 and ignored in all other
     cases.

     5. M is the index of a particular VC-1/VT-1.5, VT-2 VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12
     or VT-3 SPE VT3_SPE within a TUG-2/VT Group. VT_Group/TUG-2. M=1->2 indicates a specific VT-3
     VT3 SPE inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT
     be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 VT3 with SDH.
     M=3->5 indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 SPE VT2_SPE/VC-12 inside the
     corresponding
     TUG-2/VT Group. VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE
     VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. VT_Group/TUG-2.

     Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the
     SDH/SONET
     SONET/SDH traffic parameters, i.e. a label by itself does not
     allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is
     context sensitive).

     The S encoding is summarized in the following table:

          S    SDH                     SONET
         ------------------------------------------------
          0    other                   other
          1    1st AUG-1               1st STS-3
          2    2nd AUG-1               2nd STS-3
          3    3rd AUG-1               3rd STS-3
          4    4rd AUG-1               4rd STS-3
          :    :                       :
          N    Nth AUG-1               Nth STS-3

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         11
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

     The U encoding is summarized in the following table:

          U    SDH AUG-1               SONET STS-3
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other                   other
          1    1st VC-3                1st STS-1 SPE
          2    2nd VC-3                2nd STS-1 SPE
          3    3rd VC-3                3rd STS-1 SPE

      The K encoding is summarized in the following table:

          K    SDH VC-4
         ---------------
          0    other
          1    1st TUG-3
          2    2nd TUG-3
          3    3rd TUG-3

      The L encoding is summarized in the following table:

          L    SDH TUG-3    SDH VC-3    SONET STS-1 SPE
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other        other       other
          1    1st TUG-2    1st TUG-2   1st VTG
          2    2nd TUG-2    2nd TUG-2   2nd VTG

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     15
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

          3    3rd TUG-2    3rd TUG-2   3rd VTG
          4    4th TUG-2    4th TUG-2   4th VTG
          5    5th TUG-2    5th TUG-2   5th VTG
          6    6th TUG-2    6th TUG-2   6th VTG
          7    7th TUG-2    7th TUG-2   7th VTG

      The M encoding is summarized in the following table:

          M    SDH TUG-2                 SONET VTG
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other                     other
          1    -                         1st VT-3 VT3 SPE
          2    -                         2nd VT-3 VT3 SPE
          3    1st VC-12                 1st VT-2 VT2 SPE
          4    2nd VC-12                 2nd VT-2 VT2 SPE
          5    3rd VC-12                 3rd VT-2 VT2 SPE
          6    1st VC-11                 1st VT-1.5 VT1.5 SPE
          7    2nd VC-11                 2nd VT-1.5 VT1.5 SPE
          8    3rd VC-11                 3rd VT-1.5 VT1.5 SPE
          9    4th VC-11                 4th VT-1.5 VT1.5 SPE

   Examples of labels:

   Example 1: the label for the VC-4/STS-3c STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 STS-3/AUG-
   1 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.

   Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within
   the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         12
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

   Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
   AUG-1/STS-3
   STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.

   Example 4: the label for the VC-2/VT-6 VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 TUG-2/VT Group VT Group/TUG-2
   in the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0,
   U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.

   Example 5: the label for the 3rd VC-11/VT-1.5 VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 TUG-
   2/VT Group VT
   Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth AUG-
   1/STS-3 STS-
   3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.

   Example 6: the label for the VC-4-4c/STS-12c STS-12c/VC-4-4c which uses the 9th
   AUG-1/STS-3
   STS-3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.

   In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
   lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as
   explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the
   signal starts and the lowest part is not significant.

   In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to
   zero according to the field coding rules. For instance, when
   requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0,
   M=0. When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is
   S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft  Feb. 2003     16
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   When a transparent STM-N/STS-3*N STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) is
   requested, the label is not applicable and is set to zero.

   Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for the label for the extended is set
   of transparency types beyond the transparency types as defined in
   T1.105/G.707. to zero.

4. Acknowledgments

   Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing
   list where outstanding discussions took place.

5. Security Considerations

   This draft introduces no new security considerations to either
   [GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP]. GMPLS security is described in
   section 11 of [GMPLS-SIG], in [CR-LDP] [RFC3209] and in [RSVP-TE]. [RFC3212].

6. IANA Considerations

   Three values have to be defined by IANA for this document (two document:
   two RSVP C-Types in registry:
          http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
   and one LDP TLV Type): Type in registry:
          http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces

   - A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (see
   section 2.2).

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         13
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002
   - A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (see
   section 2.2).
   - A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see
   section 2.3).

7. Intellectual Property Notice

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification
   can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

8. Normative References

   [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS -
               Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
               draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt,
               April 2002.

   [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P., Berger, L. et al., "Generalized
               MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
               draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt,
               April 2002.

   [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L. et al, "Generalized MPLS
                Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
                draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt,
                April 2002.

   [CR-LDP]  Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
             RFC3212, January, 2002.

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
             Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         14
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

9. Informative References

   [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D. et al.,
                "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching extensions
                to control non-standard SONET and SDH features",
                Internet Draft,
                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-03.txt,
                June 2002.

   [GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D. et al., " Generalized
                Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
                Internet Draft,
                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt,
                March 2002.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.

10. Contributors

      Contributors are listed by alphabetical order.

      Stefan Ansorge
      Alcatel
      Lorenzstrasse 10
      70435 Stuttgart
      Germany
      Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44
      Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de

      Peter Ashwood-Smith
      Nortel Networks Corp.
      P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
      Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
      Canada
      Phone:  +1 613 763 4534
      Email:  petera@nortelnetworks.com

      Ayan Banerjee
      Calient Networks
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138
      Phone:  +1 408 972-3645
      Email:  abanerjee@calient.net

      Lou Berger
      Movaz Networks, Inc.
      7926 Jones Branch Drive
      Suite 615
      McLean VA, 22102
      Phone:  +1 703 847-1801

Mannie may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         15
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

      Email:  lberger@movaz.com

      Greg Bernstein
      Ciena Corporation
      10480 Ridgeview Court
      Cupertino, CA 94014
      Phone:  +1 408 366 4713
      Email:  greg@ciena.com

      Angela Chiu
      Celion Networks
      One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
      Phone: +1 732 747 9987
      Email: angela.chiu@celion.com

      John Drake
      Calient Networks
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138
      Phone:  +1 408 972 3720
      Email:  jdrake@calient.net

      Yanhe Fan
      Axiowave Networks, Inc.
      100 Nickerson Road
      Marlborough, MA 01752
      Phone:  +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
      Email:  yfan@axiowave.com

      Michele Fontana
      Alcatel
      Via Trento 30,
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
      Phone: +39 039 686-7053
      Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it

      Gert Grammel
      Alcatel
      Via Trento 30,
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
      Phone: +39 039 686-7060
      Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it

      Juergen Heiles
      Siemens AG
      Hofmannstr. 51
      D-81379 Munich, Germany
      Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64
      Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de

      Suresh Katukam
      Cisco Systems
      1450 N. McDowell Blvd,

Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002         16
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,  Feb. 2003     17
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

      Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA
      e-mail: skatukam@cisco.com

      Kireeti Kompella
      Juniper Networks, Inc.
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089
      Email:  kireeti@juniper.net

      Jonathan P. Lang
      Calient Networks
      25 Castilian
      Goleta, CA 93117
      Email:  jplang@calient.net

      Fong Liaw
      Solas Research
      Email: fongliaw@yahoo.com

      Zhi-Wei Lin
      Lucent
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030
      Phone: +1 732 949 5141
      Email: zwlin@lucent.com

      Ben Mack-Crane
      Tellabs
      Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com

      Dimitrios Pendarakis
      Tellium
      Phone: +1 (732) 923-4254
      Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com

      Mike Raftelis
      White Rock Networks
      18111 Preston Road Suite 900
      Dallas, TX 75252
      Phone: +1 (972)588-3728
      Fax:   +1 (972)588-3701
      Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com

      Bala Rajagopalan
      Tellium, Inc.
      2 Crescent Place
      P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4237
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  braja@tellium.com

      Yakov Rekhter
      Juniper Networks, Inc.

Mannie &

8. References

8.1 Normative References

   [G.707]      ITU-T Recommendation G.707, Network Node Interface
                for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, October 2000.

   [GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft D., et al., "Generalized
                Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
                Internet Draft, Work in progress,
                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt,
                August 2002.

   [GMPLS-LDP]  Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-
                LDP Extensions",
                Internet Draft, Work in progress,
                draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt,
                April 2002.

   [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling 
                RSVP-TE Extensions",
                Internet Draft, Work in progress,
                draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt,
                April 2002.

   [GMPLS-SIG]  Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
                Functional Description",
                Internet Draft, Work in progress,
                draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt,
                April 2002.

   [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2205]    Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
                (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC
                2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2210]    Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
                Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC3209]    Awduche, D., et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
                LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2002         17
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June, 2002

      Email:  yakov@juniper.net

      Debanjan Saha
      Tellium 2001.

   [RFC3212]    Jamoussi, B., et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using
                LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.

   [T1.105]     "Synchronous Optical Systems
      2 Crescent Place
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4264
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  dsaha@tellium.com

      Vishal Sharma
      Metanoia, Inc.
      335 Elan Village Lane
      San Jose, CA 95134
      Phone:  +1 408 943 1794
      Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com

      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      250 Apollo Drive
      Chelmsford, MA 01824
      Voice:  +1 978 244 8143
      Email:  swallow@cisco.com

      Z. Bo Tang
      Tellium, Inc.
      2 Crescent Place
      P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
      Phone:  +1 732 923 4231
      Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
      Email:  btang@tellium.com

      Eve Varma
      Lucent
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030
      Phone: +1 732 949 8559
      Email: evarma@lucent.com

      Maarten Vissers
      Lucent
      Botterstraat 45
      Postbus 18
      1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands
      Email: mvissers@lucent.com

      Yangguang Xu
      Lucent
      21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
      North Andover, MA 01845
      Email: xuyg@lucent.com

Mannie Network (SONET): Basic
                Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
                Formats", ANSI T1.105, October 2000.

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002  Feb. 2003     18
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

11. Editors

9. Authors Addresses

   Eric Mannie
      KPNQwest (KPNQwest)
   Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
   1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
   Phone:  +32 2 658 56 52 658-5652
   Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 585652
   Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18 658-5118
   Email:  eric.mannie@kpnqwest.com

   Dimitri Papadimitriou
      Alcatel (Alcatel)
   Francis Wellesplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone:  +32 3 240-8491
   Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be

12.  dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

10. Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002  Feb. 2003     19
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For for VC-3

   This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
   Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1:

       Value         Type
       -----  ---------------------
        20     "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end"

   According to the G.707 standard ITU-T [G.707] recommendation a VC-3 in the TU-3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 TU-
   3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured
   in TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition,
   a VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required.

   A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an
   LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could
   then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order
   LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if
   the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not
   able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on
   its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching
   the content with its switch fabric.

   In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be
   terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3
   branch.

   This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal
   type. This information can be used, for instance, by the
   penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch
   to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination
   LSR.

   The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the
   VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in
   the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in
   any branch is suitable.

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002  Feb. 2003     20
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

Annex 1 - Examples

   This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their
   objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic
   parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH
   signals.

   As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
   successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency
   transforms can be applied. applied to obtain Final Signals.

   1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0,
   NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with
   value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value
   0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 7
   components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4
   Elementary Signal.

   3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag
   1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC with
   value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary
   Signal.

   4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
   formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16
   Elementary Signal.

   5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
   formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
   STM-4 Elementary Signal.

   6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
   formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0,
   NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
   STM-256 Elementary Signal.

   7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
   value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T
   with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

   8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
   value 0 (no contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 0, NVC with
   value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
   Elementary Signal.

   9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
   flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC
   with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
   Elementary Signal.

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002  Feb. 2003     21
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt     June,
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-06.txt    August 2002

   10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
   with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
   components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
   Elementary Signal.

   11. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
   with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 9 (virtual
   concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to
   an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.

   12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
   formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0,
   MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal.

   13. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
   with flag 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with value
   3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.

   14. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
   RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with
   value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following
   table:

   Signal                     ST   RCC   NCC   NVC   MT   T
   --------------------------------------------------------
   VC-4                        6     0     0     0    1   0
   VC-4-7v                     6     0     0     7    1   0
   VC-4-16c                    6     1    16     0    1   0
   STM-16 MS transparent      10     0     0     0    1   2
   STM-4 MS transparent        9     0     0     0    1   2
   STM-256 MS transparent     12     0     0     0    1   2
   STS-1 SPE                   5     0     0     0    1   0
   STS-3c SPE                  6     0     0     0    1   0
   STS-48c SPE                 6     1    16     0    1   0
   STS-1-3v SPE                5     0     0     3    1   0
   STS-3c-9v SPE               6     0     0     9    1   0
   STS-12 Section transparent  9     0     0     0    1   1
   3 x STS-768c SPE            6     1   256     0    3   0
   5 x VC-4-13v                6     0     0    13    5   0

Mannie

E.Mannie & Papadimitriou D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft December 2002  Feb. 2003     22