draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Consulting) - Editor CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Consulting) - Editor
Internet Draft D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - Editor Internet Draft D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - Editor
Expiration Date: April 2003 October 2002 Expiration Date: August 2003 February 2003
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for
SONET and SDH Control SONET and SDH Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may
also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
skipping to change at line 39 skipping to change at line 39
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
Abstract Abstract
This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors 1 E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Contributors
Contributors are 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 Apr. 2003 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7053
Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it
Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Phone: +49 711 821-35794
Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.de
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 Apr. 2003 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 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 Apr. 2003 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As described in [GMPLS-ARCH], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends As described in [GMPLS-ARCH], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends
MPLS from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) MPLS from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC)
interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of
interfaces and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time- interfaces and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-
Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber- Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-
Switch Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions Switch Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions
to MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces to MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces
and switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes and switching is provided in [RFC3471]. [RFC3473] describes RSVP-
RSVP-TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five
classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in
[GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to [RFC3472]. This document presents details that are specific to
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH). Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried (SDH). Per [RFC3471], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in
in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects. the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology Moreover, 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] in ANSI [T1.105], ITU-T [G.707] as well as [RFC3471], [RFC3472] and
and [GMPLS-LDP]. The following abbreviations are used in this [RFC3473]. The following abbreviations are used in this document:
document:
DCC: Data Communications Channel. DCC: Data Communications Channel.
LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container
HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container
MS: Multiplex Section. MS: Multiplex Section.
MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead. MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead.
POH: Path overhead. POH: Path overhead.
RS: Regenerator Section. RS: Regenerator Section.
RSOH: Regenerator section overhead. RSOH: Regenerator section overhead.
SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy. SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy.
SOH: Section overhead. SOH: Section overhead.
SONET: Synchronous Optical Network. SONET: Synchronous Optical Network.
SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope. SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope.
STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH). STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH).
STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET). STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET).
VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH). VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH).
VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET). VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET).
Note: Changes from v06.txt to v07.txt
Add clarifications concerning the applicability scope of this memo.
2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters 2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters
This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH. This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
The protocol specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE 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 objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3
respectively. respectively.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities
for SONET ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707] such as for SONET ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707] such as
concatenation and transparency. Other documents may further concatenation and transparency. Other documents may further
enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance, enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance,
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 2
signaling for SDH over PDH ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708 signaling for SDH over PDH ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708
interfaces could be defined. interfaces could be defined.
The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be
used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo
(see Section 3). They MUST also be used when requesting one of (see Section 3). They MUST also be used when requesting one of
Section/RS or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS- Section/RS or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signals. 3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signals.
The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [GMPLS-SIG] The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [RFC3471]
Section 3.2 MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS- Section 3.2 MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests. A fully 3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests. A fully
transparent signal is one for which all overhead is left transparent signal is one for which all overhead is left
unmodified by intermediate nodes, i.e., when all defined unmodified by intermediate nodes, i.e., when all defined
Transparency (T) bits would be set if the traffic parameters Transparency (T) bits would be set if the traffic parameters
defined in section 2.1 were used. defined in section 2.1 were used.
2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters 2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters
The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized as follows: The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized as follows:
skipping to change at line 322 skipping to change at line 144
comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied
successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal
being actually requested for the LSP. being actually requested for the LSP.
Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if
zero, except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is zero, except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is
ignored if equal to one. ignored if equal to one.
Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order: Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order:
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
- First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC
fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal,
resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal. resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal.
- Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can
be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal resulting in be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal resulting in
a virtually concatenated signal. a virtually concatenated signal.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 3
- Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field) - Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field)
can be optionally specified when requesting a frame as can be optionally specified when requesting a frame as
signal rather than an SPE or VC based signal. signal rather than an SPE or VC based signal.
- Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or
on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first
phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from
the second phase, or on these signals combined with some the second phase, or on these signals combined with some
transparency. transparency.
skipping to change at line 379 skipping to change at line 200
This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the
support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation. support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation.
Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice. Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice.
These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream
node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it
supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use
according to its own rules. according to its own rules.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag
chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any
supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document
scope. A downstream node that doesnt support any of the scope. A downstream node that doesnt support any of the
concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 4
request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it
doesnt support contiguous concatenation at all. doesnt support contiguous concatenation at all.
When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves
the (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream the (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream
node has selected by looking at the position indicated by the node has selected by looking at the position indicated by the
first label and the number of label(s) as returned by the first label and the number of label(s) as returned by the
downstream node (see also Section 3). downstream node (see also Section 3).
The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous
skipping to change at line 435 skipping to change at line 255
SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation
of three STS-1 SPEs can not be requested because according to of three STS-1 SPEs can not be requested because according to
this specification, this type of signal must be coded using the this specification, this type of signal must be coded using the
STS-3c SPE signal type. STS-3c SPE signal type.
Note 2: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal Note 2: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal
limited to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4- limited to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-
Nc, the signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and Nc, the signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and
NCC set to 1. NCC set to 1.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular, concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular,
this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 5
different from 0 must imply a number of contiguous components different from 0 must imply a number of contiguous components
greater than 1. greater than 1.
Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of signals that are requested This field indicates the number of signals that are requested
to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same
type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for
which signal types are defined in this document, i.e. which signal types are defined in this document, i.e.
VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS- VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-
skipping to change at line 487 skipping to change at line 306
one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and
egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces
on which the LSP will be established can support the requested on which the LSP will be established can support the requested
multiplier value. If the requested values can not be supported, multiplier value. If the requested values can not be supported,
the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message
(see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).
Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a
PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).
Note 1: when requesting a transparent STM-N/STS-N signal limited Note 1: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited
to a single contiguously concatenated VC-4-Nc/STS-Nc-SPE, the to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
multiplier field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value). multiplier field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value).
Transparency (T): 32 bits Transparency (T): 32 bits
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to
provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 6
are necessarily valid. The default value for this field is are necessarily valid. The default value for this field is
zero, i.e. no transparency requested. zero, i.e. no transparency requested.
Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this
signaling specification, is only applicable to the fields in signaling specification, is only applicable to the fields in
the SONET/SDH frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the the SONET/SDH frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the
fields in the Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead fields in the Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead
(LOH). In the SDH case, these are the fields in the Regenerator (LOH). In the SDH case, these are the fields in the Regenerator
Section Overhead (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), Section Overhead (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH),
and the pointer fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer and the pointer fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer
skipping to change at line 538 skipping to change at line 356
The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports
the requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup the requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup
the transparency process to be applied at each intermediate the transparency process to be applied at each intermediate
LSR. LSR.
The different transparency flags are the following: The different transparency flags are the following:
Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer. Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer.
Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer. Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer.
Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved, they Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved, they
should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when
received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding
transparency is requested. transparency is requested.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
the requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be the requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be
supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION
message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively). message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the
entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator
Section layer transparency all other flags MUST be ignored. Section layer transparency all other flags MUST be ignored.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 7
Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the
LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
pointers cannot be adjusted. pointers cannot be adjusted.
Profile (P): 32 bits Profile (P): 32 bits
This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that
must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring
capabilities. capabilities.
skipping to change at line 606 skipping to change at line 422
generated. generated.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as
defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be
supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with
a "Traffic Control Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see a "Traffic Control Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see
[RFC2205]). [RFC2205]).
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control
Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 8
Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the
requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST
generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service
unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).
2.3. CR-LDP Details 2.3. CR-LDP Details
For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
skipping to change at line 663 skipping to change at line 477
3. SONET and SDH Labels 3. SONET and SDH Labels
SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure. Both SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure. Both
structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STS-N or an structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STS-N or an
STM-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported STM-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported
via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an
ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e. a VTx SPE, ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e. a VTx SPE,
an STS-x SPE or a VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the exact an STS-x SPE or a VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the exact
position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure. SONET and SDH labels or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure. SONET and SDH labels
are carried in the Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS- are carried in the Generalized Label per [RFC3473] and [RFC3472].
LDP].
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 9
Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear
logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear
after any possible interleaving. after any possible interleaving.
These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to
create unique multiplex entry names or labels. The same format of create unique multiplex entry names or labels. The same format of
label is used for SONET and SDH. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a label is used for SONET and SDH. As explained in [RFC3471], a
label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs. label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs.
This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is
used. used.
In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label. labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.
In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the
Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied
by the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we by the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we
skipping to change at line 721 skipping to change at line 531
between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then
be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated). be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated).
In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform), In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform),
the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the
Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually
concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the time- concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the time-
slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the
second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the
second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
representation limits multiplication to remain within a single representation limits multiplication to remain within a single
(component) link. (component) link.
The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link is: The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link is:
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 10
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S | U | K | L | M | | S | U | K | L | M |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707] This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707]
sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. Note that 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] sections the higher order numbering scheme defined in [G.707] sections
7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here. 7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here.
skipping to change at line 779 skipping to change at line 586
that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3 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, 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 i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the
signal allocated in that VC-3. signal allocated in that VC-3.
In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing VC- 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 12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent
the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used, the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used,
i.e. per layer network signaling. i.e. per layer network signaling.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows: The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows:
1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an 1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 11
(N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and (N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and
STM-0. STM-0.
2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an 2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH
STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0. STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.
3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is 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. K must be only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s. K must be
0 and ignored in all other cases. 0 and ignored in all other cases.
skipping to change at line 816 skipping to change at line 622
corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific
VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2.
Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the
SONET/SDH traffic parameters, i.e. a label by itself does not SONET/SDH traffic parameters, i.e. a label by itself does not
allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context
sensitive). sensitive).
The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM, The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM,
MUST be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not MUST be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not
transparent. Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, transparent i.e. when all Transparency (T) bits defined in section
16, 64, 256) signal request MUST use a label format as defined in 2.1 are set to zero. Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N
[GMPLS-SIG]. (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal request MUST use a label format as
defined in [RFC3471].
The S encoding is summarized in the following table: The S encoding is summarized in the following table:
S SDH SONET S SDH SONET
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
0 other other 0 other other
1 1st AUG-1 1st STS-3 1 1st AUG-1 1st STS-3
2 2nd AUG-1 2nd STS-3 2 2nd AUG-1 2nd STS-3
3 3rd AUG-1 3rd STS-3 3 3rd AUG-1 3rd STS-3
4 4rd AUG-1 4rd STS-3 4 4rd AUG-1 4rd STS-3
: : : : : :
N Nth AUG-1 Nth STS-3 N Nth AUG-1 Nth STS-3
The U encoding is summarized in the following table: The U encoding is summarized in the following table:
U SDH AUG-1 SONET STS-3 U SDH AUG-1 SONET STS-3
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
0 other other 0 other other
1 1st VC-3 1st STS-1 SPE 1 1st VC-3 1st STS-1 SPE
2 2nd VC-3 2nd STS-1 SPE 2 2nd VC-3 2nd STS-1 SPE
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 12
3 3rd VC-3 3rd STS-1 SPE 3 3rd VC-3 3rd STS-1 SPE
The K encoding is summarized in the following table: The K encoding is summarized in the following table:
K SDH VC-4 K SDH VC-4
--------------- ---------------
0 other 0 other
1 1st TUG-3 1 1st TUG-3
2 2nd TUG-3 2 2nd TUG-3
3 3rd TUG-3 3 3rd TUG-3
skipping to change at line 893 skipping to change at line 698
Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth STS-3/AUG- Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth STS-3/AUG-
1 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 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 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. the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.
Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2 Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2
in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0,
U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0. U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 13
Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT
Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS- Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-
3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. 3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.
Example 6: the label for the STS-12c/VC-4-4c which uses the 9th Example 6: the label for the STS-12c/VC-4-4c which uses the 9th
STS-3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. 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 In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as
explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the
signal starts and the lowest part is not significant. 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 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 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, 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 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. S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9.
When a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N Note: when a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
(N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM label format 3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM
and encoding is not applicable and the label encoding MUST follow label format and encoding is not applicable and the label encoding
the rules defined in [GMPLS-SIG] Section 3.2. MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC3471] Section 3.2.
4. Acknowledgments 4. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing
list where outstanding discussions took place. list where outstanding discussions took place.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This draft introduces no new security considerations to either This draft introduces no new security considerations to either
[GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP]. GMPLS security is described in [RFC3473] or [RFC3472]. GMPLS security is described in section 11
section 11 of [GMPLS-SIG], in [RFC3209] and in [RFC3212]. of [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE and to [RFC3212]
for CR-LDP.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Three values have to be defined by IANA for this document: Three values have to be defined by IANA for this document:
two RSVP C-Types in registry:
Two RSVP C-Types in registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
and one LDP TLV Type in registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces
- A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (see - A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA
section 2.2). (see section 2.2).
- A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (see - A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (see
section 2.2). section 2.2).
- A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see
section 2.3).
7. Intellectual Property Notice One LDP TLV Type in registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 17 - A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002 (see section 2.3).
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 14
7. Intellectual Property Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances
skipping to change at line 978 skipping to change at line 785
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
8. References 8. References
8.1 Normative References 8.1 Normative References
[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, Network Node Interface [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface
for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, October 2000. for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000.
[GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D., et al., "Generalized [GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D., et al., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", Internet
Internet Draft, Work in progress, Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt, architecture-03.txt, August 2002.
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-07.txt,
August 2002.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling
RSVP-TE Extensions",
Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-09.txt,
September 2002.
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description",
Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-09.txt,
August 2002.
[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.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
[RFC2205] Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC2205] Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC
2205, September 1997. 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services," RFC 2210, September 1997. Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using
LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), et al., "Generalized MPLS
Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January
2003.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 15
[RFC3472] Berger, L. (Editor), et al., "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", RFC 3472, January
2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), et al., "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473, January
2003.
[T1.105] "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic [T1.105] "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic
Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
Formats", ANSI T1.105, October 2000. Formats", ANSI T1.105, October 2000.
9. Authors Addresses 9. Authors Addresses
Eric Mannie (Consulting) Eric Mannie (Consulting)
Phone: +32 2 648-5023 Phone: +32 2 648-5023
Mobile: +32 (0)495-221775 Mobile: +32 (0)495-221775
Email: eric.mannie@hotmail.com Email: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellesplein 1, Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
10. Full Copyright Statement 10. Contributors
Contributors are listed by alphabetical order:
Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
Lorenzstrasse 10 PO. Box 3511 Station C,
70435 Stuttgart, Germany Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
Email: stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de Email:petera@nortelnetworks.com
Ayan Banerjee (Calient) Lou Berger (Movaz)
5853 Rue Ferrari 7926 Jones Branch Drive
San Jose, CA 95138, USA McLean, VA 22102, USA
Email: abanerjee@calient.net Email: lberger@movaz.com
Greg Bernstein (Ciena) Angela Chiu (Celion)
10480 Ridgeview Court One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
Cupertino, CA 94014, USA Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
Email: greg@ciena.com Email: angela.chiu@celion.com
John Drake (Calient) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
5853 Rue Ferrari 100 Nickerson Road
San Jose, CA 95138, USA Marlborough, MA 01752, USA
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: yfan@axiowave.com
Michele Fontana (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Via Trento 30, Lorenzstrasse, 10
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Email: michele.fontana@alcatel.it Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.de
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 16
Juergen Heiles (Siemens) Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
Hofmannstr. 51 1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
D-81379 Munich, Germany Petaluma, CA 94954-6515, USA
Email: juergen.heiles@siemens.com Email: suresh.katukam@cisco.com
Kireeti Kompella (Juniper) Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 25 Castilian
Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA Goleta, CA 93117, USA
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: jplang@calient.net
Fong Liaw (Solas Research) Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
Email: fongliaw@yahoo.com 101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030, USA
Email: zwlin@lucent.com
Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
Email: ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com
Mike Raftelis (White Rock) Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
18111 Preston Road 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
Dallas, TX 75252, USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
Email: braja@tellium.com
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
Email: yakov@juniper.net Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) George Swallow (Cisco)
335 Elan Village Lane 250 Apollo Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, USA Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA
Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) Eve Varma (Lucent)
2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901 101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030, USA
Email: btang@tellium.com 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) 17
11. Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
skipping to change at line 1064 skipping to change at line 939
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 20 E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3
This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1:
Value Type Value Type
----- --------------------- ----- ---------------------
20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" 20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end"
skipping to change at line 1114 skipping to change at line 984
type. This information can be used, for instance, by the type. This information can be used, for instance, by the
penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch
to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination
LSR. LSR.
The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the 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 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 the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in
any branch is suitable. any branch is suitable.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 21 E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
Annex 1 - Examples Annex 1 - Examples
This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their
objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic
parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH
signals. signals.
As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency
skipping to change at line 1162 skipping to change at line 1031
6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is 6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, 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 NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
STM-256 Elementary Signal. STM-256 Elementary Signal.
7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 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 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. with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 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 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1, NVC
value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
Elementary Signal. Elementary Signal.
9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with 9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC 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 with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
Elementary Signal. Elementary Signal.
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 22 E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt October 2002
10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC 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 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 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
Elementary Signal. Elementary Signal.
11. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC 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 with value 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 9 (virtual
concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to
an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is 12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, 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. 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 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 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. 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
skipping to change at line 1208 skipping to change at line 1075
Signal ST RCC NCC NVC MT T Signal ST RCC NCC NVC MT T
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
VC-4 6 0 0 0 1 0 VC-4 6 0 0 0 1 0
VC-4-7v 6 0 0 7 1 0 VC-4-7v 6 0 0 7 1 0
VC-4-16c 6 1 16 0 1 0 VC-4-16c 6 1 16 0 1 0
STM-16 MS transparent 10 0 0 0 1 2 STM-16 MS transparent 10 0 0 0 1 2
STM-4 MS transparent 9 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 STM-256 MS transparent 12 0 0 0 1 2
STS-1 SPE 5 0 0 0 1 0 STS-1 SPE 5 0 0 0 1 0
STS-3c SPE 6 0 0 0 1 0 STS-3c SPE 6 1 1 0 1 0
STS-48c SPE 6 1 16 0 1 0 STS-48c SPE 6 1 16 0 1 0
STS-1-3v SPE 5 0 0 3 1 0 STS-1-3v SPE 5 0 0 3 1 0
STS-3c-9v SPE 6 0 0 9 1 0 STS-3c-9v SPE 6 1 1 9 1 0
STS-12 Section transparent 9 0 0 0 1 1 STS-12 Section transparent 9 0 0 0 1 1
3 x STS-768c SPE 6 1 256 0 3 0 3 x STS-768c SPE 6 1 256 0 3 0
5 x VC-4-13v 6 0 0 13 5 0 5 x VC-4-13v 6 0 0 13 5 0
E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou Editors - Internet-Draft Apr. 2003 23 E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors) 21
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/