--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18.txt 2013-11-07 13:14:31.271022908 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-19.txt 2013-11-07 13:14:31.319024096 -0800 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Network Working Group Y. Lee Internet Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein -Expires: November 2013 Grotto Networking +Expires: May 2014 Grotto Networking D. Li Huawei W. Imajuku NTT - May 13, 2013 + November 7, 2013 Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-19.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 @@ months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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 13, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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 @@ -60,73 +60,54 @@ in this model is to facilitate constrained lightpath 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......................................5 - 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......................................6 - 1.1.10. Changes from 10.....................................6 - 1.1.11. Changes from 11.....................................6 - 1.1.12. Changes from 12.....................................6 - 1.1.13. Changes from 13.....................................6 - 1.1.14. Changes from 14.....................................6 - 1.1.15. Changes from 15.....................................7 - 1.1.16. Changes from 16.....................................7 - 1.1.17. Changes from 17.....................................7 - 2. Terminology....................................................7 - 3. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model............8 - 3.1. Dynamic and Relatively Static Information.................8 - 4. Node Information (General).....................................8 - 4.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................9 - 4.2. Shared Risk Node Group...................................10 - 5. Node Information (WSON specific)..............................10 - 5.1. Resource Accessibility/Availability......................11 - 5.2. Resource Signal Constraints and Processing Capabilities..15 - 5.3. Compatibility and Capability Details.....................16 - 5.3.1. Shared Input or Output Indication...................16 - 5.3.2. Optical Interface Class List........................16 - 5.3.3. Acceptable Client Signal List.......................16 - 5.3.4. Processing Capability List..........................16 - 6. Link Information (General)....................................17 - 6.1. Administrative Group.....................................17 - 6.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor................18 - 6.3. Link Protection Type (for this link).....................18 - 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group Information.......................18 - 6.5. Traffic Engineering Metric...............................18 - 6.6. Port Label (Wavelength) Restrictions.....................18 - 6.6.1. Port-Wavelength Exclusivity Example.................20 - 7. Dynamic Components of the Information Model...................21 - 7.1. Dynamic Link Information (General).......................22 - 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific).................22 - 8. Security Considerations.......................................22 - 9. IANA Considerations...........................................23 - 10. Acknowledgments..............................................23 - 11. References...................................................24 - 11.1. Normative References....................................24 - 11.2. Informative References..................................25 - 12. Contributors.................................................26 - Author's Addresses...............................................27 - Intellectual Property Statement..................................27 - Disclaimer of Validity...........................................28 + 2. Terminology....................................................3 + 3. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model............4 + 3.1. Dynamic and Relatively Static Information.................4 + 4. Node Information (General).....................................4 + 4.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................5 + 5. Node Information (WSON specific)...............................6 + 5.1. Resource Accessibility/Availability.......................7 + 5.2. Resource Signal Constraints and Processing Capabilities..11 + 5.3. Compatibility and Capability Details.....................12 + 5.3.1. Shared Input or Output Indication...................12 + 5.3.2. Optical Interface Class List........................12 + 5.3.3. Acceptable Client Signal List.......................12 + 5.3.4. Processing Capability List..........................12 + 6. Link Information (General)....................................13 + 6.1. Administrative Group.....................................13 + 6.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor................14 + 6.3. Link Protection Type (for this link).....................14 + 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group Information.......................14 + 6.5. Traffic Engineering Metric...............................14 + 6.6. Port Label Restrictions..................................14 + 6.6.1. Port-Wavelength Exclusivity Example.................16 + 7. Dynamic Components of the Information Model...................17 + 7.1. Dynamic Link Information (General).......................18 + 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific).................18 + 8. Security Considerations.......................................18 + 9. IANA Considerations...........................................19 + 10. Acknowledgments..............................................19 + 11. References...................................................20 + 11.1. Normative References....................................20 + 11.2. Informative References..................................21 + 12. Contributors.................................................22 + Author's Addresses...............................................23 + Intellectual Property Statement..................................23 + Disclaimer of Validity...........................................24 1. Introduction The purpose of the following information model for WSONs is to facilitate constrained lightpath 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 information model must provide sufficient topology and @@ -137,191 +118,24 @@ 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. 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. - - Added clarifying text on the meaning and use of port/wavelength - restrictions. - - Added clarifying text on wavelength availability information and how - to derive wavelengths currently in use. - - 1.1.2. Changes from 02 - - Integrated switched and fixed connectivity matrices into a single - "connectivity matrix" model. Added numbering of matrices to allow - for wavelength (time slot, label) dependence of the connectivity. - Discussed general use of this node parameter beyond WSON. - - Integrated switched and fixed port wavelength restrictions into a - single port wavelength restriction of which there can be more than - one and added a reference to the corresponding connectivity matrix - if there is one. Also took into account port wavelength restrictions - in the case of symmetric switches, developed a uniform model and - specified how general label restrictions could be taken into account - with this model. - - Removed the Shared Risk Node Group parameter from the node info, but - left explanation of how the same functionality can be achieved with - existing GMPLS SRLG constructs. - - Removed Maximum bandwidth per channel parameter from link - information. - - 1.1.3. Changes from 03 - - Removed signal related text from section 3.2.4 as signal related - information is deferred to a new signal compatibility draft. - - Removed encoding specific text from Section 3.3.1 of version 03. - - 1.1.4. Changes from 04 - - Removed encoding specific text from Section 4.1. - - 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 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 - internal fiber providing access to resource blocks. - - 1.1.8. Changes from 08 - - Added PORT_WAVELENGTH_EXCLUSIVITY in the RestrictionType parameter. - Added section 6.6.1 that has an example of the port wavelength - exclusivity constraint. - - 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. - - 1.1.11. Changes from 11 - - Replace all instances of "ingress" with "input" and all instances of - "egress" with "output". Added clarifying text on relationship - between resource block model and physical entities such as line - cards. - - 1.1.12. Changes from 12 - - Section 5.2: Clarified RBNF optional elements for several - definitions. - - Section 5.3.6: Clarified RBNF optional elements for - . - - Editorial changes for clarity. - - Update the contributor list. - - 1.1.13. Changes from 13 - - Section 7.1: Clarified that this information model does not dictate - placement of information elements in protocols. In particular, added - a caveat that the available label information element may be placed - within the ISCD information element in the case of OSPF. - - 1.1.14. Changes from 14 - - OIC change requested by workgroup. - - 1.1.15. Changes from 15 - - Edits of OIC related text per CCAMP list email. - - 1.1.16. Changes from 16 - - Editorial changes only. - - 1.1.17. Changes from 17 - - is added in in Section 5.2 as - follows: := - [][] - - Clarified the scope of Section 6 (Link Advertisement) that these - additional link characteristics defined in Section 6 only applies to - line side ports of WDM system or add/drop ports pertaining to - Resource Pool (e.g., Regenerator or Wavelength Converter Pool) and - not intended for ingress/egress tributary ports. - 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 input and - output line side ports as well as add/drop side ports. - - RWA: Routing and Wavelength Assignment. - - Wavelength Conversion: The process of converting an information - bearing optical signal centered at a given wavelength to one with - "equivalent" content centered at a different wavelength. Wavelength - conversion can be implemented via an optical-electronic-optical - (OEO) 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. + Refer to [RFC6163] for ROADM, RWA, Wavelength Conversion, WDM and + WSON. 3. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model 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 @@ -337,21 +151,21 @@ (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 + and that information that is relatively static and independent 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. 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 @@ -382,62 +196,47 @@ 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 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 inputinput ports and + internal blocking behavior but indicates which input 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 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 inputinput - ports and N the number of outputoutput 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]. + fixed connectivity, where M represents the number of input ports and + N the number of output 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. Note that the connectivity matrix information element can be useful in any technology context where asymmetric switches are utilized. 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. + connectivity is either fixed or switched. represents the fixed or switched connectivity in that - Matrix(i, j) = 0 or 1 depending on whether inputinput port i can - connect to outputoutput port j for one or more wavelengths. - - 4.2. Shared Risk Node Group - - SRNG: Shared risk group for nodes. The concept of a shared risk link - group was defined in [RFC4202]. This can be used to achieve a - desired "amount" of link diversity. It is also desirable to have a - similar capability to achieve various degrees of node diversity. - This is explained in [G.7715]. Typical risk groupings for nodes can - include those nodes in the same building, within the same city, or - geographic region. - - Since the failure of a node implies the failure of all links - associated with that node a sufficiently general shared risk link - group (SRLG) encoding, such as that used in GMPLS routing extensions - can explicitly incorporate SRNG information. + Matrix(i, j) = 0 or 1 depending on whether input port i can connect + to output port j for one or more wavelengths. 5. Node Information (WSON specific) As discussed in [RFC6163] a WSON node may contain electro-optical subsystems such as regenerators, wavelength converters or entire switching subsystems. The model present here can be used in characterizing the accessibility and availability of limited 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 @@ -446,33 +245,32 @@ A WSON node may include regenerators or wavelength converters arranged in a shared pool. As discussed in [RFC6163] 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 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 inputinput wavelength on a particular - inputinput port to a desired outputoutput wavelength on a - particular outputoutput port. + convert from a given input wavelength on a particular input port + to a desired output wavelength on a particular output port. 3. Limitations on the types of signals that can be converted and the conversions that can be performed. Since resources tend to be packaged together in blocks of similar devices, e.g., on line cards or other types of modules, the fundamental unit of identifiable resource in this document is the "resource block". A resource block may contain one or more - resources. As resources are the smallest identifiable unit of - processing resource, one can group together resources into blocks if + resources. A resource is the smallest identifiable unit of + processing resource. One can group together resources into blocks if they have similar characteristics relevant to the optical system being modeled, e.g., processing properties, accessibility, etc. This leads to the following formal high level model: ::= [...] [] Where @@ -534,64 +332,64 @@ 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 output the resource block (Figure 2). Finally, to complete the model, a resource pool output matrix RE(p,k) = {0,1} depending on whether the output from resource block p can reach output port k, may be used. - I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ E1 + I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ O1 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> - I2 | +------+ Rb #1 +-------+ | E2 + I2 | +------+ Rb #1 +-------+ | O2 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> | | | | | Resource | +--------+ | Resource | | Pool +------+ +-------+ Pool | | | + Rb #2 + | | | Input +------+ +-------| Output | | Connection | +--------+ | Connection | | Matrix | . | Matrix | | | . | | | | . | | - IN | | +--------+ | | EM + IN | | +--------+ | | OM ----->| +------+ Rb #P +-------+ |-----> | | +--------+ | | +-------------+ ^ ^ +-------------+ | | | | | | | | Input wavelength Output wavelength constraints for constraints for each resource each resource Figure 1 Schematic diagram of resource pool model. - I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ E1 + I1 +-------------+ +-------------+ O1 ----->| | +--------+ | |-----> - I2 | +======+ Rb #1 +-+ + | E2 + I2 | +======+ Rb #1 +-+ + | O2 ----->| | +--------+ | | |-----> | | |=====| | | Resource | +--------+ | | Resource | | Pool | +-+ Rb #2 +-+ | Pool | | | | +--------+ + | | Input |====| | Output | | Connection | | +--------+ | Connection | | Matrix | +-| Rb #3 |=======| Matrix | | | +--------+ | | | | . | | | | . | | | | . | | - IN | | +--------+ | | EM + IN | | +--------+ | | OM ----->| +======+ Rb #P +=======+ |-----> | | +--------+ | | +-------------+ ^ ^ +-------------+ | | | | | | Single (shared) fibers for block input and output Input wavelength Output wavelength availability for availability for @@ -604,21 +402,21 @@ ::= ::=()... - 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 input or output 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 @@ -681,32 +479,30 @@ support different optical characteristics, a single interface may support multiple interface classes. Which optical interface class is used among all the ones available for an interface is out of the scope of this draft but is an output of the RWA process. 5.3.3. Acceptable Client Signal List The list is simply: - ::=[]... + < ClientSignalList>::=[]... - Where the Generalized Protocol Identifiers (GPID) object - represents one of the IETF standardized GPID values as defined in - [RFC3471] and [RFC4328]. + Where the Generalized Protocol Identifiers (G-PID) object + represents one of the IETF standardized G-PID values as defined + in [RFC3471] and [RFC4328]. 5.3.4. Processing Capability List - The ProcessingCapabilities were defined in Section 5.2 as follows: + The ProcessingCapabilities were defined in Section 5.2. - ::= [] - [] [] [] 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 2. Regeneration capability 3. Fault and performance monitoring @@ -730,22 +526,21 @@ route protocols and new information that maybe needed by the RWA process. ::= [] [] [] []... [] [] Note that these additional link characteristics only applies to line side ports of WDM system or add/drop ports pertaining to Resource Pool (e.g., Regenerator or Wavelength Converter Pool). The - advertisement of ingress/egress tributary ports is not intended - here. + advertisement of input/output tributary ports is not intended here. 6.1. Administrative Group AdministrativeGroup: Defined in [RFC3630]. Each set bit corresponds to one administrative group assigned to the interface. A link may belong to multiple groups. This is a configured quantity and can be used to influence routing decisions. 6.2. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor @@ -764,53 +559,59 @@ 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group Information SRLG: Defined in [RFC4202] and implemented in [RFC4203, RFC5307]. This allows for the grouping of links into shared risk groups, i.e., those links that are likely, for some reason, to fail at the same time. 6.5. Traffic Engineering Metric TrafficEngineeringMetric: Defined in [RFC3630]. This allows for the - definition of one additional link metric value for traffic - engineering separate from the IP link state routing protocols link - metric. Note that multiple "link metric values" could find use in - optical networks, however it would be more useful to the RWA process - to assign these specific meanings such as link mile metric, or + identification of a data channel link metric value for traffic + engineering that is separate from the metric used for path cost + computation of the control plane. + + Note that multiple "link metric values" could find use in optical + networks, however it would be more useful to the RWA process to + assign these specific meanings such as link mile metric, or probability of failure metric, etc... - 6.6. Port Label (Wavelength) Restrictions + 6.6. Port Label Restrictions + + Port label restrictions could be applied generally to any label + types in GMPLS by adding new kinds of restrictions. Wavelength is a + type of label. Port label (wavelength) restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label (wavelength) restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs, ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port. These restrictions tell us what wavelength may or may not be used on a link and are relatively static. This plays an important role in fully characterizing a WSON switching device [Switch]. Port wavelength restrictions are specified relative to the port in general or to a specific connectivity matrix (section 4.1. + Reference [Switch] gives an example where both switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of constraints occur - on the same port. Such restrictions could be applied generally to - other label types in GMPLS by adding new kinds of restrictions. + on the same port. - ::= [...] - [...] + ::= ... + ... ::= - [] + ::= - [] + - ::= [...] [] - [] + ::= ... + Where MatrixID is the ID of the corresponding connectivity matrix (section 4.1. The RestrictionType parameter is used to specify general port restrictions and matrix specific restrictions. It can take the following values and meanings: @@ -878,31 +679,29 @@ | A v 10 | +-------+ +-------+ | Split | |WSS 6 | +-------+ +-------+ +----+ | | | | | | | | | W | | | | | | | | +-------+ +----+ | S |--------------+ | | | +-----+ | +----+ | | S | 9 | S |----------------|---|----|-------|------|----|---| p | - <--| |----------------|---|----|-------|----+ | +---| l |<- - - + <--| |----------------|---|----|-------|----+ | +---| l |< | 5 |--------------+ | | | +-----+ | | +--| i | +----+ | | | | | +------|-|-----|--| t | +--------|-+ +----|-|---|------|----+ | +----+ +----+ | | | | | | | | | | S |-----|--------|----------+ | | | | | | +----+ | p |-----|--------|------------|---|------|----|--|--| W | -->| l |-----|-----+ | +----------+ | | | +--|--| S |11 - | i |---+ | | | | +------------|------|-------|--| S |-- - > + | i |---+ | | | | +------------|------|-------|--| S |-> | t | | | | | | | | | | +---|--| | +----+ | | +---|--|-|-|------------|------|-|-|---+ | 7 | | | | +--|-|-|--------+ | | | | | +----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | WSS 1| | Split| | WSS 3| | Split| +--+---+ +--+---+ +--+---+ +--+---+ | A | A v | v | +-------+ +--+----+ +-------+ +--+----+ @@ -950,53 +749,64 @@ another information element such as the interface switching capability descriptor (ISCD). Consult routing protocol specific extensions for details of placement of information elements. 7.2. Dynamic Node Information (WSON Specific) Currently the only node information that can be considered dynamic is the resource pool state and can be isolated into a dynamic node information element as follows: - ::= [] + ::= [] + + Where + + ::= ...[] 8. Security Considerations This document discussed an information model for RWA computation in WSONs. Such a model is very similar from a security standpoint of the information that can be currently conveyed via GMPLS routing protocols. Such information includes network topology, link state and current utilization, and well as the capabilities of switches and routers within the network. As such this information should be protected from disclosure to unintended recipients. In addition, the intentional modification of this information can significantly affect network operations, particularly due to the large capacity of - the optical infrastructure to be controlled. + the optical infrastructure to be controlled. A general discussion on + security in GMPLS networks can be found in [RFC5920]. 9. IANA Considerations This informational document does not make any requests for IANA action. 10. Acknowledgments This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- ccamp-rwa-wson-encode. + [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.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, Network node interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH), January 2007. [G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709, Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network(OTN), March 2003. [G.975.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.975.1, Forward error correction for high bit-rate DWDM submarine systems, February 2004. [RBNF] A. Farrel, "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax Used @@ -1030,35 +840,31 @@ (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. 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. + PCE-based WSON Networks", iPOP 2008. [G.Sup39] ITU-T Series G Supplement 39, Optical system design and engineering considerations, February 2006. - [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS - and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", - RFC 6163, April 2011. + [RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS + Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. + + [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and + PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC + 6163, April 2011. 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) @@ -1081,28 +887,22 @@ NEC Corp. 1753 Simonumabe, Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 211-8666 Japan Phone: +81 44 396 3287 Email: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com Lyndon Ong Ciena Email: lyong@ciena.com - Cyril Margaria - Nokia Siemens Networks - St Martin Strasse 76 - Munich, 81541 - Germany - Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 - Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com + Email: cyril.margaria@googlemail.com Author's Addresses Greg M. Bernstein (ed.) Grotto Networking Fremont California, USA Phone: (510) 573-2237 Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com