draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-15.txt   rfc7449.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational G. Bernstein
Expires: April 2015 Grotto Networking
Jonas Martensson
Acreo
T. Takeda
NTT
T. Tsuritani
KDDI
O. G. de Dios
Telefonica
October 28, 2014 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Lee, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7449 Huawei
PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment Category: Informational G. Bernstein, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Grotto Networking
J. Martensson
Acreo
T. Takeda
NTT
T. Tsuritani
KDDI
O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
February 2015
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-15.txt Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements
for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON)
Routing and Wavelength Assignment
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 (WSONs). 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
path computation. Requirements for PCEP extensions in support of computation. Requirements for PCEP extensions in support of optical
optical impairments will be addressed in a separate document. impairments will be addressed in a separate document.
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 Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents published for informational purposes.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2009. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
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 and Architecture .............................4
3. Requirements...................................................6 3. Requirements ....................................................5
3.1. Path Computation Type Option..............................6 3.1. Path Computation Type Option ...............................5
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 ................................6
3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply....................7 3.4. RWA Path Reoptimization Request/Reply ......................7
3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint...............................8 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint ................................7
3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference..........................8 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference ...........................7
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 .............................8
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........................10 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring ..........................9
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................10 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation ................................9
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components10 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components ..9
4.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................10 4.6. Impact on Network Operation ................................9
5. Security Considerations.......................................10 5. Security Considerations .........................................9
6. IANA Considerations...........................................11 6. References .....................................................10
7. Acknowledgments...............................................11 6.1. Normative References ......................................10
8. References....................................................11 6.2. Informative References ....................................10
8.1. Normative References.....................................11 Acknowledgments....................................................11
8.2. Informative References...................................11 Authors' Addresses.................................................11
Authors' Addresses...............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement..................................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 (LSPs) in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and networks controlled by Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)-controlled networks at the request of Path Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) at the request of
Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network Path 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
optical switching element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing optical switching element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing
(WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can be located anywhere within the (WDM) network. The PCE itself can be located anywhere within the
network, and may be within an optical switching element, a Network network; it may be within an optical switching element, a Network
Management System (NMS) or Operational Support System (OSS), or may Management System (NMS), or an Operational Support System (OSS), or
be an independent network server. it may be an independent network server.
The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) is the
used between PCC and PCE, and may also be used between cooperating communication protocol used between a PCC and PCE; it may also be
PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP. used between cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common
Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred protocol requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific
to separate documents. requirements for PCEP are deferred 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 (WSONs). 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 span The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may span
multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned a wavelength multiple fiber links, and the path should be assigned a wavelength
for each link. for each link.
A transparent optical network is made up of optical devices that can A transparent optical network is made up of optical devices that can
switch but not convert from one wavelength to another. In a switch but not convert from one wavelength to another. In a
transparent optical network, a lightpath operates on the same transparent optical network, a lightpath operates on the same
wavelength across all fiber links that it traverses. In such case, wavelength across all fiber links that it traverses. In such cases,
the lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity the lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity
constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common fiber link cannot be constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common fiber link cannot be
assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both
signals interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional signals interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are multiplexing techniques such as polarization-based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not addressed in this document since the physical-layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical
path computation process. 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 path 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 for cost reasons, while that wavelength converters may be limited for cost reasons, while the
the number of WDM channels that can be supported in a fiber is also number of WDM channels that can be supported in a fiber is also
limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes that cannot limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes that cannot
perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited wavelength perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited wavelength
conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion abilities, conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion abilities,
wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint to be wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint to be
considered in all lightpath computations. 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 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In [RFC6163] three alternative process architectures were given for 2. WSON RWA Processes and Architecture
performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown
schematically in Figure 1. R stands for Routing, WA for Wavelength In [RFC6163], three alternative process architectures were given for
Assignment, and DWA for Distributed Wavelength Assignment. performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown
schematically in Figure 1, where R stands for Routing, WA for
Wavelength Assignment, and DWA for Distributed Wavelength Assignment.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| | R | |WA| | | R |--->|WA| | R |--->|DWA| | | R | |WA| | | R |--->|WA| | R |--->|DWA|
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes | Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes
| Processes | WA performed in a | Process | 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 Process (R&WA)
Here path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as Path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as a
a single process. The requirements for PCC-PCE interaction single process. The requirements for PCC-PCE interaction with a
with such a combined RWA process PCE is addressed in this PCE implementing such a combined RWA process are addressed in
document. this document.
(b) Routing separate from Wavelength Assignment (R+WA) (b) Routing Separate from Wavelength Assignment (R+WA)
Here the routing process furnishes one or more potential paths The routing process furnishes one or more potential paths to the
to the wavelength assignment process that then performs final wavelength assignment process that then performs final path
path selection and wavelength assignment. The requirements for selection and wavelength assignment. The requirements for PCE-
PCE-PCE interaction with one PCE implementing the routing PCE interaction with one PCE implementing the routing process
process and another implementing the wavelength assignment and another implementing the wavelength assignment process are
process are not addressed in this document. not addressed in this document.
(b') Routing and distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA) (b') Routing and Distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA)
Here a standard path computation (unaware of detailed A standard path computation (unaware of detailed wavelength
wavelength availability) takes place, then wavelength availability) takes place, and then wavelength assignment is
assignment is performed along this path in a distributed performed along this path in a distributed manner via signaling
manner via signaling (RSVP-TE). This alternative is a (RSVP-TE). This alternative is a particular case of R+WA and
particular case of R+WA and it should be covered by GMPLS PCEP should be covered by GMPLS PCEP extensions; it does not present
extensions and does not present new WSON-specific new WSON-specific requirements.
requirements.
In the previous section various process architectures for The various process architectures for implementing RWA have been
implementing RWA have been reviewed. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE- reviewed above. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE-based implementation,
based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process which is referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this
(R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and architecture, the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment
wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This are accessed via a single PCE. This architecture is the base
architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements architecture from which the requirements are specified in this
are specified in this document. 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
A PCEP request MAY 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), (a) Both RWA, or
(ii) Routing only. (b) 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. For the 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 As discussed in Section 2, various RWA processing options should be
MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At the supported in a PCEP request/reply.
minimum, the following option should be supported:
(i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC3473] (a) When the request is an RWA path computation type, the request
MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At
minimum, the following options should be supported:
(ii) A set of recommended labels for each hop. The PCC can (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC3473]
select the label based on local policy.
Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA. (ii) A set of recommended labels for each hop. The PCC can
select the label based on local policy.
(b) In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA.
the wavelength(s) assigned to the path and an indication of which
label assignment option has been applied (ELC or label set).
(c) In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST (b) In case of an RWA computation type, the response MUST include
include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected, the wavelength(s) assigned to the path and an indication of
wavelength not found, or both, etc.). Note that 'wavelength not which label assignment option has been applied (ELC or label
found' may include several sub-cases such as wavelength set).
continuity not met, unsupported FEC/Modulation type, etc.
3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply (c) In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST
include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected,
wavelength not found, 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
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 the PCEP specification [RFC5440]. To remain consistent,
following requirements are added. the 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 requests. A bulk path request provides an ability to
of simultaneous RWA path requests. request a number of simultaneous RWA path requests.
(b) The PCEP response MUST include the path and the assigned (b) The PCEP response MUST include the path and the assigned
wavelength assigned for each RWA path request specified in the wavelength for each RWA path request specified in the original
original bulk request. bulk request.
3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply 3.4. RWA Path Reoptimization Request/Reply
1. For a re-optimization request, the request MUST provide both the This section provides a number of requirements concerning RWA path
path and current wavelength to be re-optimized and MAY include reoptimization processing in PCEP.
the following options:
a. Re-optimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s) (a) For a reoptimization request, the request MUST provide both the
path and current wavelength to be reoptimized and MAY include
the following options:
b. Re-optimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path (i) Reoptimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s)
c. Re-optimize allowing both the wavelength and the path to (ii) Reoptimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path
change
2. The corresponding response to the re-optimized request MUST (iii) Reoptimize allowing both the wavelength and the path to
provide the re-optimized path and wavelengths even when the change
request asked for the path or the wavelength to remain unchanged.
3. In case that the new path is not found, the response MUST include (b) The corresponding response to the reoptimized request MUST
why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected, wavelength provide the reoptimized path and wavelengths even when the
not found, or both, etc.). Note that 'wavelength not found' may request asked for the path or the wavelength to remain
include several sub-cases such as wavelength continuity not met, unchanged.
unsupported FEC/Modulation type, etc.
3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint (c) In the case that the new path is not found, the response MUST
include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected,
wavelength not found, 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
For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MUST be For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MUST be
allowed to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The allowed to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The
requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength for
for explicit label or label set. This restriction may for example explicit labels or label sets. This restriction may, for example,
come from the tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical come from the tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical
element, or a policy-based restriction. element, or a policy-based restriction.
Note that the requester (e.g., PCC) is not required to furnish any Note that the requester (e.g., PCC) is not required to furnish any
range restrictions. range restrictions.
3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference
1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requester In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g., sparse 3R
preference for, e.g., random assignment, descending order, regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a single,
ascending order, etc. A response SHOULD follow the requestor continuous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other words,
preference unless it conflicts with operator's policy. the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to specify the precedence of
wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available.
2. A request for two or more paths MUST allow the requester to (a) An RWA computation type request MAY include the requester
include an option constraining the paths to have the same preference for random assignment, descending order, ascending
wavelength(s) assigned. This is useful in the case of protection order, etc. A response SHOULD follow the requester preference
with single transponder (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths). unless it conflicts with the operator's policy.
In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse 3R (b) A request for two or more paths MUST allow the requester to
regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a include an option constraining the paths to have the same
single, continuous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other wavelength(s) assigned. This is useful in the case of
words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to specify the precedence protection with a single transponder (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint
of wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available. paths).
3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction 3.7. Signal-Processing Capability Restriction
Signal processing compatibility is an important constraint for Signal-processing compatibility is an important constraint for
optical path computation. The signal type for an end-to-end optical optical path computation. The signal type for an end-to-end optical
path must match at source and at destination. path must match at the source and at the destination.
The PCC MUST be allowed to specify the signal type at the endpoints The PCC MUST be allowed to specify the signal type at the endpoints
(i.e., at source and at destination). The following signal (i.e., at the source and at the destination). The following signal-
processing capabilities should be supported at a minimum: 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 The PCC MUST also be allowed to state whether transit modification is
is acceptable for the above signal processing capabilities. 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 RWA with PCE must address the following
PCE must address the following considerations: 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:
o The ability to send a WSON RWA request. o The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
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 PCE: following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
o The support for WSON RWA. o The support for WSON RWA.
o The maximum number of bulk path requests associated with WSON o The maximum number of bulk path requests associated with WSON RWA
RWA per request message. per request message.
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a specific
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of sessions with a
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. specific group of PCEP peers.
4.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module 4.2. Information and Data Models
As this document only concerns the requirements to support WSON RWA, As this document only concerns the requirements to support WSON RWA,
no additional MIB module is defined in this document. However, the no additional MIB module is defined in this document. However, the
corresponding solution draft will list the information that should corresponding solution document will list the information that should
be added to the PCE MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB]. be added to the PCE MIB module defined in [RFC7420].
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
No new mechanism is defined in this document that implies any new This document does not define any new mechanisms that imply any new
liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those
already listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. already listed in Section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
No new mechanism is defined in this document that implies any new This document does not define any new mechanisms that 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
If PCE discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) were to be If PCE discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) were to be
extended for technology-specific capabilities, advertising WSON RWA extended for technology-specific capabilities, advertising WSON RWA
path computation capability should be considered. path computation capability should be considered.
4.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
No new mechanism is defined in this document that implies any new This document does not define any new mechanisms that imply any new
network operation requirements in addition to those already listed network operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
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.
Solutions that address the requirements in this document need to Solutions that address the requirements in this document need to
verify that existing PCEP security mechanisms adequately protect the verify that existing PCEP security mechanisms adequately protect the
additional network capabilities and must include new mechanisms as additional network capabilities and must include new mechanisms as
necessary. necessary.
6. IANA Considerations 6. References
This informational document does not make any requests for IANA
action.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Cycil Margaria and
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. 6.1. Normative References
8. References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.1. Normative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 6.2. Informative References
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
2009. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
September 2006. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
RFC 6163, April 2011. Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Acknowledgments
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K, et al., "PCE communication protocol(PCEP) The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Cycil Margaria, and
Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib, Ramon Casellas for many helpful comments that greatly improved the
work in progress. content of this document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (Ed.) Young Lee (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3 5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75245, USA Plano, TX 75245
Phone: (469)277-5838 United States
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Greg Bernstein (Ed.) Phone: (469) 277-5838
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Greg Bernstein (editor)
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA, USA Fremont, CA
United States
Phone: (510) 573-2237 Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Jonas Martensson Jonas Martensson
Acreo Acreo
Email:Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se Isafjordsgatan 22
164 40 Kista
Sweden
EMail: Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se
Tomonori Takeda Tomonori Takeda
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
3-9-11, Midori-Cho 3-9-11, Midori-Cho
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Email: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp Japan
EMail: tomonori.takeda@ntt.com
Takehiro Tsuritani Takehiro Tsuritani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Saitama, 356-8502. Japan 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Saitama, 356-8502
Phone: +81-49-278-7357 Japan
Email: tsuri@kddilabs.jp
Phone: +81-49-278-7806
EMail: tsuri@kddilabs.jp
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Telefonica
C/ Emilio Vargas 6 Distrito Telefonica, ed. Sur 3, Pta 3, Ronda de la Comunicacion
Madrid, 28043 Madrid, 28050
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es Phone: +34 913129647
EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
 End of changes. 120 change blocks. 
309 lines changed or deleted 321 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/