draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-13.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein
Expires: February 2015 Grotto Networking Expires: April 2015 Grotto Networking
Jonas Martensson Jonas Martensson
Acreo Acreo
T. Takeda T. Takeda
NTT NTT
T. Tsuritani T. Tsuritani
KDDI KDDI
O. G. de Dios O. G. de Dios
Telefonica Telefonica
August 1, 2014 October 13, 2014
PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-13.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14.txt
Abstract Abstract
This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning
in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.
From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the
process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a
path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light
path computation. Requirements for optical impairments will be path computation. Requirements for PCEP extensions in support of
addressed in a separate document. 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.
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 reference at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 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 January 1, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 42 skipping to change at page 2, line 42
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...............................8
3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference..........................8 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference..........................8
3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction..................8 3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction..................8
4. Manageability Considerations...................................8 4. Manageability Considerations...................................9
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........................10
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation...............................9 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................10
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...............................................11
8. References....................................................10 8. References....................................................11
8.1. Normative References.....................................10 8.1. Normative References.....................................11
8.2. Informative References...................................11 8.2. Informative References...................................11
Authors' Addresses...............................................12 Authors' Addresses...............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement..................................12 Intellectual Property Statement..................................13
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)-controlled networks at the request of Path Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)-controlled networks at the request of Path
Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network
component that makes such a request and may be for instance an component that makes such a request and may be for instance an
skipping to change at page 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 37
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 Figure 1. schematically in Figure 1. R stands for Routing, WA for Wavelength
Assignment, and DWA for Distributed Wavelength Assignment.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| |Routing| |WA| | |Routing|--->|WA| |Routing|--->|DWA| | | R | |WA| | | R |--->|WA| | R |--->|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) (b') (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.
(a) Combined Processes (R&WA) (a) Combined Processes (R&WA)
Here path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as Here path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
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
A PCEP request MUST include the path computation type. This can be: A PCEP request MAY include the path computation type. This can be:
(i) Both Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA), (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
(a) 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) [RFC3473]
(ii) A set of recommended labels. The PCC can select the (ii) A set of recommended labels for each hop. The PCC can
label based on local policy. select the label based on local policy.
Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA. Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA.
(b) In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include (b) In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include
the wavelength(s) assigned to the path 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 set). label assignment option has been applied (ELC or label set).
(c) 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 path, wavelength not include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected,
found, optical quality check failed, etc.) wavelength not found, or both, etc.). Note that 'wavelength not
found' may include several sub-cases such as wavelength
continuity not met, unsupported FEC/Modulation type, etc.
3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply 3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply
Sending simultaneous path requests for "routing only" computation is Sending simultaneous path requests for "routing only" computation is
supported by PCEP specification [RFC5440]. To remain consistent the supported by PCEP specification [RFC5440]. To remain consistent the
following requirements are added. following requirements are added.
(a) A PCEP request MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA (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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
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 the wavelength and the path to c. Re-optimize allowing both the wavelength and the path to
change 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 even when the
request asked for the path or the wavelength to remain unchanged.
3. In case that the path is not found, the response MUST include why 3. In case that the new path (i.e., other than the current path) is
the path is not found (e.g., no path, wavelength not found, both not found, the response MUST include why the path is not found
path and wavelength not found, etc.) (e.g., network disconnected, wavelength not found, or both,
etc.). Note that 'wavelength not found' may include several sub-
cases such as wavelength continuity not met, unsupported
FEC/Modulation type, 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) MUST be
specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The requester allowed to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The
MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength for explicit requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength
label or label set. for explicit label or label set.
Note that the requestor (e.g., PCC) is not required to furnish any Note that the requester (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 ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or a
policy-based restriction. policy-based restriction.
3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference
1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requestor 1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requester
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 two or more paths MUST be able to include an option 2. A request for two or more paths MUST allow the requester to
constraining the paths to have the same wavelength(s) assigned. include an option constraining the paths to have the same
This is useful in the case of protection with single transponder wavelength(s) assigned. This is useful in the case of protection
(e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths). with single transponder (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths).
In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse 3R In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse 3R
regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a
single, continuous 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 specify the precedence words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to specify the precedence
of 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 Signal processing compatibility is an important constraint for
compatibility either on the endpoints or on any given links. The optical path computation. The signal type for an end-to-end optical
following signal processing capabilities should be supported at a path must match at source and at destination.
minimum:
The PCC MUST be allowed to specify the signal type at the endpoints
(i.e., at source and at destination). The following signal
processing capabilities should be supported at a minimum:
o Modulation Type List o Modulation Type List
o FEC Type List o FEC Type List
The PCC MUST also be allowed to state whether transit modification
is acceptable for the above signal processing capabilities.
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 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 29
[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.
[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.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4003] L. Berger, "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", [RFC3473] L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
RFC 4003, February 2005. (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006. 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.
skipping to change at page 12, line 43 skipping to change at line 515
Phone: +81-49-278-7357 Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Email: tsuri@kddilabs.jp Email: tsuri@kddilabs.jp
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6 C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043 Madrid, 28043
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013 Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: ogondio@tid.es
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line
IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 58 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/