draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-12.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-13.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein
Expires: October 2014 G. Bernstein Expires: February 2015 Grotto Networking
Grotto Networking
Jonas Martensson Jonas Martensson
Acreo Acreo
T. Takeda T. Takeda
NTT NTT
T. Tsuritani T. Tsuritani
KDDI KDDI
O. G. de Dios
Telefonica
O. G. de Dios August 1, 2014
Telefonica
April 28, 2014
PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-12.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-13.txt
Abstract
This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning
in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.
From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the
process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a
path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light
path computation. Requirements for optical impairments will be
addressed in a separate document.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning
in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.
From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the
process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a
path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light
path computation. Requirements for Optical impairments will be
addressed in a separate document.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 0. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture ..............................4 2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture..............................4
3. Requirements ...................................................6 3. Requirements...................................................6
3.1. Path Computation Type Option..............................6 3.1. Path Computation Type Option..............................6
3.2. RWA Processing............................................6 3.2. RWA Processing............................................6
3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply...............................7 3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply...............................7
3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply....................7 3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply....................7
3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint...............................7 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint...............................7
3.6. ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference..........................8
policy based restriction. Wavelength Assignment Preference.....8
3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction..................8 3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction..................8
4. Manageability Considerations ...................................9 4. Manageability Considerations...................................8
4.1. Control of Function and Policy............................9 4.1. Control of Function and Policy............................9
4.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module..............9 4.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module..............9
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring.........................9 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring.........................9
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation...............................9 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation...............................9
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components10 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components10
4.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................10 4.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................10
5. Security Considerations .......................................10 5. Security Considerations.......................................10
6. IANA Considerations ...........................................10 6. IANA Considerations...........................................10
7. Acknowledgments ...............................................10 7. Acknowledgments...............................................10
8. References ....................................................11 8. References....................................................10
8.1. Normative References.....................................11 8.1. Normative References.....................................10
8.2. Informative References...................................11 8.2. Informative References...................................11
Authors' Addresses...............................................12 Authors' Addresses...............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement..................................13 Intellectual Property Statement..................................12
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................13 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines the PCE based Architecture and explains how a Path [RFC4655] defines the PCE-based architecture and explains how a Path
Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the request of Path Computation Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)-controlled networks at the request of Path
Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network component that Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network
makes such a request and may be for instance an Optical Switching component that makes such a request and may be for instance an
Element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. optical switching element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing
The PCE, itself, can be located anywhere within the network, and may (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can be located anywhere within the
be within an optical switching element, a Network Management System network, and may be within an optical switching element, a Network
(NMS) or Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent Management System (NMS) or Operational Support System (OSS), or may
network server. be an independent network server.
The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol
used between PCC and PCE, and may also be used between cooperating used between PCC and PCE, and may also be used between cooperating
PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP. PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP.
Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred
to separate documents. to separate documents.
This document provides a set of application-specific PCEP This document provides a set of application-specific PCEP
requirements for support of path computation in Wavelength Switched requirements for support of path computation in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSON). WSON refers to WDM based optical networks Optical Networks (WSON). WSON refers to WDM-based optical networks
in which switching is performed selectively based on the wavelength in which switching is performed selectively based on the wavelength
of an optical signal. of an optical signal.
The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may span
span multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned a multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned a wavelength
wavelength for each link. A transparent optical network is made up for each link.
of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
wavelength to another. In a transparent optical network, a lightpath A transparent optical network is made up of optical devices that can
operates on the same wavelength across all fiber links that it switch but not convert from one wavelength to another. In a
traverses. In such case, the lightpath is said to satisfy the transparent optical network, a lightpath operates on the same
wavelength-continuity constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common wavelength across all fiber links that it traverses. In such case,
fiber link cannot be assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise the lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity
would result in both signals interfering with each other. Note that constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common fiber link cannot be
advanced additional multiplexing techniques such as polarization assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both
based multiplexing are not addressed in this document since the signals interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional
physical layer aspects are not currently standardized. Therefore, multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
assigning the proper wavelength on a lightpath is an essential not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
requirement in the optical path computation process. not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical
path computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a lightpath may use different wavelengths on different links along a lightpath may use different wavelengths on different links along
its route from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted its path from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted
that wavelength converters may be limited due to their relatively that wavelength converters may be limited for cost reasons, while
high cost, while the number of WDM channels that can be supported in the number of WDM channels that can be supported in a fiber is also
a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes that cannot
that cannot perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited wavelength
wavelength conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion abilities,
abilities, wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint to be
to be considered in all lightpath computation. considered in all lightpath computations.
In this document we first review the processes for routing and In this document we first review the processes for routing and
wavelength assignment (RWA) used when wavelength continuity wavelength assignment (RWA) used when wavelength continuity
constraints are present and then specify requirements for PCEP to constraints are present and then specify requirements for PCEP to
support RWA. Requirements for Optical impairments will be addressed support RWA. Requirements for optical impairments will be addressed
in a separate document. in a separate document.
The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655]. The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655].
2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture 2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture
In [RFC6163] three alternative process architectures were given for In [RFC6163] three alternative process architectures were given for
performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown
schematically in 0. schematically in Figure 1.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| |Routing| |WA| | |Routing|--->|WA| |Routing|--->|DWA| | |Routing| |WA| | |Routing|--->|WA| |Routing|--->|DWA|
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes | Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes
| Processes | WA performed in a | Processes | WA performed in a
+-------------------+ Distributed manner +-------------------+ Distributed manner
(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (b')
Figure 1. RWA process alternatives. Figure 1. RWA process alternatives
These alternatives have the following properties and impact on PCEP These alternatives have the following properties and impact on PCEP
requirements in this document. requirements in this document.
1. Combined Processes (R&WA) - Here path selection and wavelength (a) Combined Processes (R&WA)
assignment are performed as a single process. The requirements
for PCC-PCE interaction with such a combined RWA process PCE is
addressed in this document.
2. Routing separate from Wavelength Assignment (R+WA) - Here the Here path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as
routing process furnishes one or more potential paths to the a single process. The requirements for PCC-PCE interaction
wavelength assignment process that then performs final path with such a combined RWA process PCE is addressed in this
selection and wavelength assignment. The requirements for PCE- document.
PCE interaction with one PCE implementing the routing process and
another implementing the wavelength assignment process are not
addressed in this document.
3. Routing and distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA) - Here a (b) Routing separate from Wavelength Assignment (R+WA)
standard path computation (unaware of detailed wavelength
availability) takes place, then wavelength assignment is Here the routing process furnishes one or more potential paths
performed along this path in a distributed manner via signaling to the wavelength assignment process that then performs final
(RSVP-TE). This alternative should be covered by existing or path selection and wavelength assignment. The requirements for
emerging GMPLS PCEP extensions and does not present new WSON PCE-PCE interaction with one PCE implementing the routing
specific requirements. process and another implementing the wavelength assignment
process are not addressed in this document.
(b') Routing and distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA)
Here a standard path computation (unaware of detailed
wavelength availability) takes place, then wavelength
assignment is performed along this path in a distributed
manner via signaling (RSVP-TE). This alternative is a
particular case of R+WA and it should be covered by GMPLS PCEP
extensions and does not present new WSON-specific
requirements.
In the previous section various process architectures for In the previous section various process architectures for
implementing RWA have been reviewed. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE implementing RWA have been reviewed. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE-
based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process
(R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and (R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and
wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This
architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements
are specified in this document. are specified in this document.
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| | | | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+ | PCE | +-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 2. Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Figure 2. Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
3. Requirements 3. Requirements
The requirements for the PCC to PCE interface of Figure 2 are The requirements for the PCC to PCE interface of Figure 2 are
specified in this section. specified in this section.
3.1. Path Computation Type Option 3.1. Path Computation Type Option
1. A PCEP request MUST include the path computation type. This can A PCEP request MUST include the path computation type. This can be:
be:
(i) Both Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA), or (i) Both Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA),
(ii) Routing only. (ii) Routing only.
This requirement is needed to differentiate between the currently This requirement is needed to differentiate between the currently
supported routing with distributed wavelength assignment option and supported routing with distributed wavelength assignment option and
combined RWA. In case of distributed wavelength assignment option, combined RWA. In case of distributed wavelength assignment option,
wavelength assignment will be performed at each node of the route. wavelength assignment will be performed at each node of the route.
3.2. RWA Processing 3.2. RWA Processing
1. When the request is a RWA path computation type, the request (a) When the request is a RWA path computation type, the request
MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At the MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At the
minimum, the following option should be supported: minimum, the following option should be supported:
(i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003]
(ii) A set of recommended labels. The PCC can select the (ii) A set of recommended labels. The PCC can select the
label based on local policy. label based on local policy.
Note that option ii) may also be used in R+WA or DWA. Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA.
2. In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include the (b) In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include
wavelength(s) assigned to the route and an indication of which the wavelength(s) assigned to the path and an indication of which
label assignment option has been applied (ELC or Label Sets). label assignment option has been applied (ELC or label set).
3. In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST (c) In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST
include why the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not include why the path is not found (e.g., no path, wavelength not
found, optical quality check failed, etc.) found, optical quality check failed, etc.)
3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply 3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply
1. A PCEP request MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA Sending simultaneous path requests for "routing only" computation is
supported by PCEP specification [RFC5440]. To remain consistent the
following requirements are added.
(a) A PCEP request MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA
path request. Bulk path request is an ability to request a number path request. Bulk path request is an ability to request a number
of simultaneous RWA path requests. of simultaneous RWA path requests.
2. The PCEP response MUST include the route, wavelength assigned to (b) The PCEP response MUST include the path and the assigned
the route for each RWA path request specified in the original wavelength assigned for each RWA path request specified in the
bulk request. original bulk request.
3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply 3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply
1. For a re-optimization request, the request MUST provide both the 1. For a re-optimization request, the request MUST provide both the
route and current wavelength to be re-optimized and MAY include path and current wavelength to be re-optimized and MAY include
the following options: the following options:
a. Re-optimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s) a. Re-optimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s)
b. Re-optimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path b. Re-optimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path
c. Re-optimize allowing both wavelength and the path to change c. Re-optimize allowing both the wavelength and the path to
change
2. The corresponding response to the re-optimized request MUST 2. The corresponding response to the re-optimized request MUST
provide the re-optimized path and wavelengths. provide the re-optimized path and wavelengths.
3. In case that the path is not found, the response MUST include why 3. In case that the path is not found, the response MUST include why
the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not found, both the path is not found (e.g., no path, wavelength not found, both
route and wavelength not found, etc.) path and wavelength not found, etc.)
3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint
For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MAY For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MAY
specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The requester specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The requester
MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelenght for Explict MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength for explicit
Label or Label Sets. label or label set.
Note that the requestor (e.g., PCC) is NOT required to furnish any Note that the requestor (e.g., PCC) is not required to furnish any
range restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the range restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the
tuning tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an
policy-based restriction.
3.6. ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference
policy based restriction.
Wavelength Assignment Preference
1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requestor 1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requestor
preference for (E.g., random assignment, descending order, preference for, e.g., random assignment, descending order,
ascending order, etc.) A response SHOULD follow the requestor ascending order, etc. A response SHOULD follow the requestor
preference unless it conflicts with operator's policy. preference unless it conflicts with operator's policy.
2. A request for 2 or more paths (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths) MUST 2. A request for two or more paths MUST be able to include an option
be able to specify an option constraining the path to have the constraining the paths to have the same wavelength(s) assigned.
same wavelength(s) assigned. This is useful in the case of protection with single transponder
(e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths).
Note that this is extremely useful in the case of protection with
single transponder.
In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse 3R
3R regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a
single, contiguous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other single, continuous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other
words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to constrain the words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to specify the precedence
wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available. of wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available.
3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction 3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction
A request MUST be able to specify restrictions for signal A request MUST be able to specify restrictions for signal
compatibility either on the endpoints or any given links. The compatibility either on the endpoints or on any given links. The
following signal processing capabilities should be supported at a following signal processing capabilities should be supported at a
minimum: minimum:
o Modulation Type List o Modulation Type List
o FEC Type List o FEC Type List
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations: PCE must address the following considerations:
4.1. Control of Function and Policy 4.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC: following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
skipping to change at page 10, line 6 skipping to change at page 10, line 6
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.4 of [RFC5440] section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used If PCE discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) were to be
to advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. extended for technology-specific capabilities, advertising WSON RWA
path computation capability should be considered.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440]. section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within PCEP [RFC5440]. However the additional information within PCEP [RFC5440]. However the additional information
distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a
disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep
private. Consideration should be given to securing this information. private. Consideration should be given to securing this information.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This informational document does not make any requests for IANA This informational document does not make any requests for IANA
action. action.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Cycil Margaria and
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft. Ramon Casellas for many helpful comments that greatly improved the
contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K, et al., "PCE communication protocol(PCEP)
Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib,
work in progress.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6566] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), D. Li and G. [RFC4003] L. Berger, "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control",
Martinelli "A Framework for the Control and Measurement of RFC 4003, February 2005.
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with
Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012. [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS
and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
RFC 6163, April 2011. RFC 6163, April 2011.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K, et al., "PCE communication protocol(PCEP)
Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib,
work in progress.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (Ed.) Young Lee (Ed.)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3 5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75245, USA Plano, TX 75245, USA
Phone: (469)277-5838 Phone: (469)277-5838
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Greg Bernstein (Ed.) Greg Bernstein (Ed.)
 End of changes. 70 change blocks. 
176 lines changed or deleted 168 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/