--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-10.txt 2011-03-14 22:14:37.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11.txt 2011-03-14 22:14:37.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Network Working Group Y. Lee Internet Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein -Expires: August 2011 Grotto Networking +Expires: September 2011 Grotto Networking D. Li Huawei W. Imajuku NTT - February 28, 2011 + March 14, 2011 Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-10.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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. @@ -28,21 +28,21 @@ 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2011. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -50,99 +50,101 @@ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Abstract This document provides a model of information needed by the routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process in wavelength switched optical networks (WSONs). The purpose of the information described - in this model is to facilitate constrained lightpath computation in - WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints + in this model is to facilitate constrained optical path computation + in WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not include constraints due to optical impairments. Aspects of this information that may be of use to other technologies utilizing a GMPLS control plane are discussed. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 1.1. Revision History..........................................4 1.1.1. Changes from 01......................................4 1.1.2. Changes from 02......................................4 1.1.3. Changes from 03......................................4 1.1.4. Changes from 04......................................5 1.1.5. Changes from 05......................................5 1.1.6. Changes from 06......................................5 1.1.7. Changes from 07......................................5 1.1.8. Changes from 08......................................5 1.1.9. Changes from 09......................................5 + 1.1.10. Changes from 10.....................................6 2. Terminology....................................................6 3. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model............6 3.1. Dynamic and Relatively Static Information.................7 4. Node Information (General).....................................7 - 4.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................7 + 4.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................8 4.2. Shared Risk Node Group....................................8 5. Node Information (WSON specific)...............................9 5.1. Resource Accessibility/Availability......................10 - 5.2. Resource Signal Constraints and Processing Capabilities..13 - 5.3. Compatibility and Capability Details.....................14 - 5.3.1. Shared Ingress or Egress Indication.................14 - 5.3.2. Modulation Type List................................14 - 5.3.3. FEC Type List.......................................14 - 5.3.4. Bit Rate Range List.................................14 - 5.3.5. Acceptable Client Signal List.......................15 - 5.3.6. Processing Capability List..........................15 - 6. Link Information (General)....................................15 - 6.1. Administrative Group.....................................16 - 6.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor................16 - 6.3. Link Protection Type (for this link).....................16 - 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group Information.......................16 - 6.5. Traffic Engineering Metric...............................16 - 6.6. Port Label (Wavelength) Restrictions.....................16 - 6.6.1. Port-Wavelength Exclusivity Example.................18 - 7. Dynamic Components of the Information Model...................19 - 7.1. Dynamic Link Information (General).......................20 - 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific).................20 - 8. Security Considerations.......................................20 - 9. IANA Considerations...........................................21 - 10. Acknowledgments..............................................21 - 11. References...................................................22 - 11.1. Normative References....................................22 - 11.2. Informative References..................................23 - 12. Contributors.................................................24 - Author's Addresses...............................................24 - Intellectual Property Statement..................................25 - Disclaimer of Validity...........................................26 + 5.2. Resource Signal Constraints and Processing Capabilities..14 + 5.3. Compatibility and Capability Details.....................15 + 5.3.1. Shared Ingress or Egress Indication.................15 + 5.3.2. Modulation Type List................................15 + 5.3.3. FEC Type List.......................................15 + 5.3.4. Bit Rate Range List.................................15 + 5.3.5. Acceptable Client Signal List.......................16 + 5.3.6. Processing Capability List..........................16 + 6. Link Information (General)....................................16 + 6.1. Administrative Group.....................................17 + 6.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor................17 + 6.3. Link Protection Type (for this link).....................17 + 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group Information.......................17 + 6.5. Traffic Engineering Metric...............................17 + 6.6. Port Label (Wavelength) Restrictions.....................17 + 6.6.1. Port-Wavelength Exclusivity Example.................19 + 7. Dynamic Components of the Information Model...................20 + 7.1. Dynamic Link Information (General).......................21 + 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific).................21 + 8. Security Considerations.......................................21 + 9. IANA Considerations...........................................22 + 10. Acknowledgments..............................................22 + 11. References...................................................23 + 11.1. Normative References....................................23 + 11.2. Informative References..................................24 + 12. Contributors.................................................25 + Author's Addresses...............................................25 + Intellectual Property Statement..................................26 + Disclaimer of Validity...........................................27 1. Introduction The purpose of the following information model for WSONs is to - facilitate constrained lightpath computation and as such is not a + facilitate constrained optical path computation and as such is not a general purpose network management information model. This constraint is frequently referred to as the "wavelength continuity" constraint, - and the corresponding constrained lightpath computation is known as - the routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) problem. Hence the + and the corresponding constrained optical path computation is known + as the routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) problem. Hence the information model must provide sufficient topology and wavelength restriction and availability information to support this computation. More details on the RWA process and WSON subsystems and their properties can be found in [WSON-Frame]. The model defined here includes constraints between WSON signal attributes and network elements, but does not include optical impairments. In addition to presenting an information model suitable for path computation in WSON, this document also highlights model aspects that may have general applicability to other technologies utilizing a - GMPLS control plane. We refer to the information model applicable to - other technologies beyond WSON as "general" to distinguish from the - "WSON-specific" model that is applicable only to WSON technology. + GMPLS control plane. The portion of the information model applicable + to other technologies beyond WSON is referred to as "general" to + distinguish it from the "WSON-specific" portion that is applicable + only to WSON technology. 1.1. Revision History 1.1.1. Changes from 01 Added text on multiple fixed and switched connectivity matrices. Added text on the relationship between SRNG and SRLG and encoding considerations. @@ -188,22 +190,22 @@ Removed encoding specific text from Section 3.4. 1.1.5. Changes from 05 Renumbered sections for clarity. Updated abstract and introduction to encompass signal compatibility/generalization. Generalized Section on wavelength converter pools to include electro - optical subsystems in general. This is where we added signal - compatibility modeling. + optical subsystems in general. This is where signal compatibility + modeling was added. 1.1.6. Changes from 06 Simplified information model for WSON specifics, by combining similar fields and introducing simpler aggregate information elements. 1.1.7. Changes from 07 Added shared fiber connectivity to resource pool modeling. This includes information for determining wavelength collision on an @@ -218,20 +220,27 @@ 1.1.9. Changes from 09 Section 5: clarified the way that the resource pool is modeled from blocks of identical resources. Section 5.1: grammar fixes. Removed reference to "academic" modeling pre-print. Clarified RBNF resource pool model details. Section 5.2: Formatting fixes. + 1.1.10. Changes from 10 + + Enhanced the explanation of shared fiber access to resources and + updated Figure 2 to show a more general situation to be modeled. + + Removed all 1st person idioms. + 2. Terminology CWDM: Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing. DWDM: Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing. FOADM: Fixed Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer. ROADM: Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer. A reduced port count wavelength selective switching element featuring ingress and @@ -246,21 +255,21 @@ process or via a strictly optical process. WDM: Wavelength Division Multiplexing. Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON): A WDM based optical network in which switching is performed selectively based on the center wavelength of an optical signal. 3. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model - We group the following WSON RWA information model into four + The following WSON RWA information model is grouped into four categories regardless of whether they stem from a switching subsystem or from a line subsystem: o Node Information o Link Information o Dynamic Node Information o Dynamic Link Information @@ -257,66 +266,65 @@ categories regardless of whether they stem from a switching subsystem or from a line subsystem: o Node Information o Link Information o Dynamic Node Information o Dynamic Link Information - Note that this is roughly the categorization used in [G.7715] section 7. - In the following we use, where applicable, the reduced Backus-Naur - form (RBNF) syntax of [RBNF] to aid in defining the RWA information - model. + In the following, where applicable, the reduced Backus-Naur form + (RBNF) syntax of [RBNF] is used to aid in defining the RWA + information model. 3.1. Dynamic and Relatively Static Information All the RWA information of concern in a WSON network is subject to change over time. Equipment can be upgraded; links may be placed in or out of service and the like. However, from the point of view of RWA computations there is a difference between information that can change with each successive connection establishment in the network and that information that is relatively static on the time scales of connection establishment. A key example of the former is link wavelength usage since this can change with connection setup/teardown and this information is a key input to the RWA process. Examples of relatively static information are the potential port connectivity of a WDM ROADM, and the channel spacing on a WDM link. - In this document we will separate, where possible, dynamic and static + This document separates, where possible, dynamic and static information so that these can be kept separate in possible encodings and hence allowing for separate updates of these two types of information thereby reducing processing and traffic load caused by the timely distribution of the more dynamic RWA WSON information. 4. Node Information (General) The node information described here contains the relatively static information related to a WSON node. This includes connectivity constraints amongst ports and wavelengths since WSON switches can exhibit asymmetric switching properties. Additional information could include properties of wavelength converters in the node if any are present. In [Switch] it was shown that the wavelength connectivity constraints for a large class of practical WSON devices can be modeled via switched and fixed connectivity matrices along with - corresponding switched and fixed port constraints. We include these - connectivity matrices with our node information the switched and - fixed port wavelength constraints with the link information. + corresponding switched and fixed port constraints. These connectivity + matrices are included with the node information while the switched + and fixed port wavelength constraints are included with the link + information. Formally, ::= [...] - Where the Node_ID would be an appropriate identifier for the node within the WSON RWA context. Note that multiple connectivity matrices are allowed and hence can fully support the most general cases enumerated in [Switch]. 4.1. Connectivity Matrix The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches (e.g. ROADMs @@ -318,34 +326,34 @@ 4.1. Connectivity Matrix The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches (e.g. ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer. Note that this matrix does not represent any particular internal blocking behavior but indicates which ingress ports and wavelengths could possibly be connected to a particular output port. Representing internal state dependent blocking for a switch or ROADM - is beyond the scope of this document and due to it's highly + is beyond the scope of this document and due to its highly implementation dependent nature would most likely not be subject to standardization in the future. The connectivity matrix is a conceptual M by N matrix representing the potential switched or fixed connectivity, where M represents the number of ingress ports and N - the number of egress ports. We say this is a "conceptual" matrix - since this matrix tends to exhibit structure that allows for very - compact representations that are useful for both transmission and - path computation [Encode]. + the number of egress ports. This is a "conceptual" matrix since the + matrix tends to exhibit structure that allows for very compact + representations that are useful for both transmission and path + computation [Encode]. Note that the connectivity matrix information element can be useful in any technology context where asymmetric switches are utilized. - ConnectivityMatrix(i, j) ::= + ConnectivityMatrix ::= Where is a unique identifier for the matrix. can be either 0 or 1 depending upon whether the connectivity is either fixed or potentially switched. represents the fixed or switched connectivity in that Matrix(i, j) = 0 or 1 depending on whether ingress port i can connect @@ -375,108 +383,111 @@ resources such as regenerators or wavelength converters as well as WSON signal attribute constraints of electro-optical subsystems. As such this information element is fairly specific to WSON technologies. A WSON node may include regenerators or wavelength converters arranged in a shared pool. As discussed in [WSON-Frame] this can include OEO based WDM switches as well. There are a number of different approaches used in the design of WDM switches containing regenerator or converter pools. However, from the point of view of - path computation we need to know the following: + path computation the following need to be known: 1. The nodes that support regeneration or wavelength conversion. 2. The accessibility and availability of a wavelength converter to convert from a given ingress wavelength on a particular ingress port to a desired egress wavelength on a particular egress port. 3. Limitations on the types of signals that can be converted and the conversions that can be performed. - For modeling purposes and encoding efficiency we group identical - processing resources such as regenerators or wavelength converters - with identical accessibility properties into "blocks". The resource - pool model is composed of one or more resource blocks where the - accessibility to and from any resource within a block is the same. + For modeling purposes and encoding efficiency identical processing + resources such as regenerators or wavelength converters with + identical limitations, and processing and accessibility properties + are grouped into "blocks". Such blocks can consist of a single + resource, though grouping resources into blocks leads to more + efficient encodings. The resource pool model is composed of one or + more resource blocks where the accessibility to and from any resource + within a block is the same. This leads to the following formal high level model: ::= [...] [] Where ::= ... [...] [...] [] - First we will address the accessibility of resource blocks then we - will discuss their properties. + First the accessibility of resource blocks is addressed then their + properties are discussed. 5.1. Resource Accessibility/Availability A similar technique as used to model ROADMs and optical switches can be used to model regenerator/converter accessibility. This technique was generally discussed in [WSON-Frame] and consisted of a matrix to indicate possible connectivity along with wavelength constraints for links/ports. Since regenerators or wavelength converters may be - considered a scarce resource we will also want to our model to - include as a minimum the usage state (availability) of individual - regenerators or converters in the pool. Models that incorporate more - state to further reveal blocking conditions on ingress or egress to - particular converters are for further study and not included here. + considered a scarce resource it is desirable that the model include, + if desired, the usage state (availability) of individual regenerators + or converters in the pool. Models that incorporate more state to + further reveal blocking conditions on ingress or egress to particular + converters are for further study and not included here. The three stage model is shown schematically in Figure 1 and Figure - 2. The difference between the two figures is that in Figure 1 we - assume that each signal that can get to a resource block may do so, - while in Figure 2 the access to the resource blocks is via a shared - fiber which imposes its own wavelength collision constraint. In the - representation of Figure 1 we can have more than one ingress to each + 2. The difference between the two figures is that Figure 1 assumes + that each signal that can get to a resource block may do so, while in + Figure 2 the access to sets of resource blocks is via a shared fiber + which imposes its own wavelength collision constraint. The + representation of Figure 1 can have more than one ingress to each resource block since each ingress represents a single wavelength - signal, while in Figure 2 we show a single multiplexed WDM ingress, - e.g., a fiber, to each block. + signal, while in Figure 2 shows a single multiplexed WDM ingress or + egress, e.g., a fiber, to/from each set of block. - In this model we assume N ingress ports (fibers), P resource blocks + This model assumes N ingress ports (fibers), P resource blocks containing one or more identical resources (e.g. wavelength converters), and M egress ports (fibers). Since not all ingress ports can necessarily reach each resource block, the model starts with a resource pool ingress matrix RI(i,p) = {0,1} whether ingress port i can reach potentially reach resource block p. Since not all wavelengths can necessarily reach all the resources or - the resources may have limited input wavelength range we have a set - of relatively static ingress port constraints for each resource. In - addition, if the access to a resource block is via a shared fiber - (Figure 2) this would impose a dynamic wavelength availability - constraint on that shared fiber. We can model each resource block - ingress port constraint via a static wavelength set mechanism and in - the case of shared access to a block via another dynamic wavelength - set mechanism. + the resources may have limited input wavelength range the model has a + set of relatively static ingress port constraints for each resource. + In addition, if the access to a set of resource blocks is via a + shared fiber (Figure 2) this would impose a dynamic wavelength + availability constraint on that shared fiber. The resource block + ingress port constraint is modeled via a static wavelength set + mechanism and the case of shared access to a set of blocks is modeled + via a dynamic wavelength set mechanism. - Next we have a state vector RA(j) = {0,...,k} which tells us the - number of resources in resource block j in use. This is the only - state kept in the resource pool model. This state is not necessary - for modeling "fixed" transponder system or full OEO switches with WDM - interfaces, i.e., systems where there is no sharing. + Next a state vector RA(j) = {0,...,k} is used to track the number of + resources in resource block j in use. This is the only state kept in + the resource pool model. This state is not necessary for modeling + "fixed" transponder system or full OEO switches with WDM interfaces, + i.e., systems where there is no sharing. - After that, we have a set of static resource egress wavelength - constraints and possibly dynamic shared egress fiber constraints. The + After that, a set of static resource egress wavelength constraints + and possibly dynamic shared egress fiber constraints maybe used. The static constraints indicate what wavelengths a particular resource block can generate or are restricted to generating e.g., a fixed regenerator would be limited to a single lambda. The dynamic constraints would be used in the case where a single shared fiber is used to egress the resource block (Figure 2). - Finally, we have a resource pool egress matrix RE(p,k) = {0,1} - depending on whether the output from resource block p can reach - egress port k. + Finally, to complete the model, a resource pool egress matrix RE(p,k) + = {0,1} depending on whether the output from resource block p can + reach egress port k, may be used. I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ E1 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> I2 | +------+ Rb #1 +-------+ | E2 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> | | | | | Resource | +--------+ | Resource | | Pool +------+ +-------+ Pool | | | + Rb #2 + | | | Ingress +------+ +-------| Egress | @@ -494,72 +505,74 @@ | | Ingress wavelength Egress wavelength constraints for constraints for each resource each resource Figure 1 Schematic diagram of resource pool model. I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ E1 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> - I2 | +======+ Rb #1 +=======+ | E2 - ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> - | | | | - | Resource | +--------+ | Resource | - | Pool | | | | Pool | - | |======+ Rb #2 +=======+ | - | Ingress | + | | Egress | - | Connection | +--------+ | Connection | - | Matrix | . | Matrix | + I2 | +======+ Rb #1 +-+ + | E2 + ----->| | +--------+ | | |-----> + | | |=====| | + | Resource | +--------+ | | Resource | + | Pool | +-+ Rb #2 +-+ | Pool | + | | | +--------+ + | + | Ingress |====| | Egress | + | Connection | | +--------+ | Connection | + | Matrix | +-| Rb #3 |=======| Matrix | + | | +--------+ | | + | | . | | | | . | | | | . | | IN | | +--------+ | | EM ----->| +======+ Rb #P +=======+ |-----> | | +--------+ | | +-------------+ ^ ^ +-------------+ | | | | | | Single (shared) fibers for block ingress and egress Ingress wavelength Egress wavelength availability for availability for each block ingress fiber each block egress fiber Figure 2 Schematic diagram of resource pool model with shared block accessibility. - Formally we complete the specification of the model with: + Formally the model can be specified as: - + ::= - [ ::= + ::= ::=()... - Note that except for all the other components of + Note that except for all the other components of are relatively static. Also the and are only used in the cases of shared ingress or egress access to the particular block. See the resource block information in the next section to see how this is specified. 5.2. Resource Signal Constraints and Processing Capabilities The wavelength conversion abilities of a resource (e.g. regenerator, wavelength converter) were modeled in the - previously discussed. As discussed in [WSON-Frame] we can model the - constraints on an electro-optical resource in terms of input + previously discussed. As discussed in [WSON-Frame] the constraints on + an electro-optical resource can be modeled in terms of input constraints, processing capabilities, and output constraints: ::= ([] )* Where is a list of resource block identifiers with the same characteristics. If this set is missing the constraints are applied to the entire network element. The are signal compatibility based constraints @@ -574,21 +587,21 @@ of these capabilities are defined in section 5.3. ::= The are either restrictions on the properties of the signal leaving the block, options concerning the signal properties when leaving the resource or shared fiber egress constraint indication. - := + ::= 5.3. Compatibility and Capability Details 5.3.1. Shared Ingress or Egress Indication As discussed in the previous section and shown in Figure 2 the ingress or egress access to a resource block may be via a shared fiber. The and elements are indicators for this condition with respect to the block being described. @@ -634,21 +647,21 @@ The list is simply: ::=[]... Where the Generalized Protocol Identifiers (GPID) object represents one of the IETF standardized GPID values as defined in [RFC3471] and [RFC4328]. 5.3.6. Processing Capability List - We have defined ProcessingCapabilities in Section 5.2 as follows: + The ProcessingCapabilities were defined in Section 5.2 as follows: ::= The processing capability list sub-TLV is a list of processing functions that the WSON network element (NE) can perform on the signal including: 1. Number of Resources within the block @@ -780,23 +792,23 @@ LabelSet is a conceptual set of labels (wavelengths). MaxNumChannels is the maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used (relative to either a port or a matrix). MaxWaveBandWidth is the maximum width of a tunable waveband switching device. PortSet is a conceptual set of ports. - For example, if the port is a "colored" drop port of a ROADM then we - have two restrictions: (a) CHANNEL_COUNT, with MaxNumChannels = 1, - and (b) SIMPLE_WAVELENGTH, with the wavelength set consisting of a + For example, if the port is a "colored" drop port of a ROADM then + there are two restrictions: (a) CHANNEL_COUNT, with MaxNumChannels = + 1, and (b) SIMPLE_WAVELENGTH, with the wavelength set consisting of a single member corresponding to the frequency of the permitted wavelength. See [Switch] for a complete waveband example. This information model for port wavelength (label) restrictions is fairly general in that it can be applied to ports that have label restrictions only or to ports that are part of an asymmetric switch and have label restrictions. In addition, the types of label restrictions that can be supported are extensible. 6.6.1. Port-Wavelength Exclusivity Example @@ -805,22 +817,22 @@ that can lead to the constraint where a lambda (label) maybe used at most once on a set of ports Figure 3 shows a ROADM architecture based on components known as a Wavelength Selective Switch (WSS)[OFC08]. This ROADM is composed of splitters, combiners, and WSSes. This ROADM has 11 egress ports, which are numbered in the diagram. Egress ports 1-8 are known as drop ports and are intended to support a single wavelength. Drop ports 1-4 egress from WSS #2, which is fed from WSS #1 via a single fiber. Due to this internal structure a constraint is placed on the egress ports 1-4 that a lambda can be only used once over the group of ports (assuming uni-cast and not multi-cast - operation). Similarly we see that egress ports 5-8 have a similar - constraint due to the internal structure. + operation). Similarly the egress ports 5-8 have a similar constraint + due to the internal structure. | A v 10 | +-------+ +-------+ | Split | |WSS 6 | +-------+ +-------+ +----+ | | | | | | | | | W | | | | | | | | +-------+ +----+ | S |--------------+ | | | +-----+ | +----+ | | S | 9 | S |----------------|---|----|-------|------|----|---| p | @@ -857,30 +869,30 @@ change with subsequent establishment and teardown of connections. Depending on the protocol used to convey this overall information model it may be possible to send this dynamic information separate from the relatively larger amount of static information needed to characterize WSON's and their network elements. 7.1. Dynamic Link Information (General) For WSON links wavelength availability and wavelengths in use for shared backup purposes can be considered dynamic information and - hence we can isolate the dynamic information in the following set: + hence are grouped with the dynamic information in the following set: ::= [] AvailableLabels is a set of labels (wavelengths) currently available on the link. Given this information and the port wavelength - restrictions we can also determine which wavelengths are currently in - use. This parameter could potential be used with other technologies - that GMPLS currently covers or may cover in the future. + restrictions one can also determine which wavelengths are currently + in use. This parameter could potential be used with other + technologies that GMPLS currently covers or may cover in the future. SharedBackupLabels is a set of labels (wavelengths) currently used for shared backup protection on the link. An example usage of this information in a WSON setting is given in [Shared]. This parameter could potential be used with other technologies that GMPLS currently covers or may cover in the future. 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific) Currently the only node information that can be considered dynamic is @@ -952,43 +964,43 @@ Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. - [WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS - and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", - work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework. - 11.2. Informative References [OFC08] P. Roorda and B. Collings, "Evolution to Colorless and Directionless ROADM Architectures," Optical Fiber communication/National Fiber Optic Engineers Conference, 2008. OFC/NFOEC 2008. Conference on, 2008, pp. 1-3. [Shared] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, "Shared Backup Mesh Protection in PCE- based WSON Networks", iPOP 2008, http://www.grotto- networking.com/wson/iPOP2008_WSON-shared-mesh-poster.pdf . [Switch] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, A. Gavler, J. Martensson, " Modeling WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp. 187-195. [G.Sup39] ITU-T Series G Supplement 39, Optical system design and engineering considerations, February 2006. + [WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS + and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", + work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework. + 12. Contributors Diego Caviglia Ericsson Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153 Genoa Italy Phone: +39 010 600 3736 Email: diego.caviglia@(marconi.com, ericsson.com)