Signaling extensions for Media Channel sub-carriers configuration in Spectrum Switched Optical Networks (SSON) in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Optical Line Systems.
draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-12
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Galimberti, Ed.
Internet-Draft D. La Fauci
Intended status: Experimental Cisco
Expires: July 2, 2022 A. Zanardi, Ed.
L. Galvagni
FBK
J. Meuric
Orange
December 29, 2021
Signaling extensions for Media Channel sub-carriers configuration in
Spectrum Switched Optical Networks (SSON) in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
Optical Line Systems.
draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-12
Abstract
This memo defines the signaling extensions for managing Spectrum
Switched Optical Network (SSON) parameters shared between the Client
and the Network and inside the Network in accordance to the model
described in [RFC7698]. The extensions are in accordance and
extending the parameters defined in ITU-T Recommendation
G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1] and its extensions and G.872.[ITU.G872].
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2022.
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Client interface parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Signalling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. New LSP Request Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Extension to LSP set-up specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Common Signal Description TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Sub-carrier List Content TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Sub-carrier sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. RSVP Protocol Extensions Considerations . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is widely used in
Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) to support the optical
circuit set-up through the signalling between Core Nodes and Edge
Nodes (reusing terminology from [RFC4208]. This extension addresses
the use cases described by [RFC7698] Ch.3.3 and supports the
information, needed in Spectrum Switched Optical Network (SSON), to
signal a Media Channel and the associated carriers set request. The
new set of parameters is related to the Media Channel and the
carrier(s) routed with it and keep the backward compatibility with
the WSON signalling. In particular this memo addresses the use cases
where the SSON LSP (the Media Channel in RFC7698) use multiple
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
carrier (OTSi) to carry the Payload. The set of the carriers can be
seen as single Logical circuit. This memo can be considered as the
extension of [RFC7792].
Figure 1 shows how the multiple carrier are mapped into a Media
Channel. A set of parameters must be shared on the UNI to allow the
core control plane to do the proper routing and Spectrum Assignment
and decide the carrier position.
+------+ +------+ _________ +------+ +------+
| E.N. | | C.N. | / /\ | C.N. | | E.N. |
| OTS1| ----- | || | || | ----- |OTS1 |
==| OTS2| ----- | || Media | || | ----- |OTS2 |==
==| OTS3| ----- | || Channel| || | ----- |OTS3 |==
| OTS4| ----- | || | || | ----- |OTS4 |
| | | ROADM| \________\/ | ROADM| | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
+---UNI---+ +---UNI---+
E.N. = Edge Node (a.k.a. UNI Client / transceiver shelf)
C.N. = Core Node (a.k.a. UNI Network / edge ROADM)
ROADM = Lambda/Spectrum switch
Media Channel = the optical circuit
OTSi = Carriers belonging to the same Network Media Channel (or
Super Channel or OTSiG)
UNI = Signallig interface between E.N. and C.N.
Figure 1: Multi carrier LSP
2. Client interface parameters
The Edge Node interface can have one or multiple carriers (OTSi).
All the carrier have the same characteristics and are provisionable
in terms of:
Number of subcarriers:
This parameter indicates the number of subcarriers (OTSi)
available for the super-channel (OTSiG or OTSiA) in case the
Transceiver can support multiple carrier circuits. The OTSi is
defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.959.1, section 3.2.4 [G.959.1].
The OTSiG is currently being moved from ITU-T Recommendation G.709
[G.709] to the new draft Recommendation G.807 (still work in
progress) [G.807]. The OTSiG is an electrical signal that is
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
carried by one or more OTSi's. The relationship between the OTSiG
and the OTSi's is described in ITU-T draft Recommendation G.807,
section 10.2 [G.807]. This draft specifies the case where the
each carrier (OTSi) is terminated on a physical port so the
transceiver can have multiple ports. In future editions also the
case where multiple carriers are terminated on the same port will
be supported (also known as Sliceable Transponders).
Central frequency (see G.694.1 Table 1):
This parameter indicates the Central frequency value that Ss and
Rs will be set to work (in THz). See the details in Section 6/
G.694.1 or based on "n" value explanation and the following "k"
values definition in case of multicarrier transceivers.
Central frequency granularity:
This parameter indicates the Central frequency granularity
supported by the transceiver, this value is combined with k and n
value to calculate the central frequency of the carrier or sub-
carriers.
Minimum channel spacing:
This is the minimum nominal difference in frequency (in GHz)
between two adjacent channels (or carriers) depending on the
Transceiver characteristics and provisioning.
Bit rate / Baud rate of Optical Tributary Signals (OTSi):
Optical Tributary Signal bit (for NRZ signals) rate or Symbol (for
Multiple bit per symbol) rate .
FEC Coding:
This parameter indicate what Forward Error Correction (FEC) code
is used at Ss and Rs (R/W) (not mentioned in G.698.2). .
Wavelength Range (see G.694.1): [ITU.G694.1]
This parameter indicate minimum and maximum wavelength spectrum in
a definite wavelength Band (L, C and S). That is the transceiver
tunability range
Modulation format:
This parameter indicates the list of supported Modulation Formats
and the provisioned Modulation Format.
Inter carrier skew:
This parameter indicates, in case of multi-carrier LSP (OTSiG) the
maximum skew between the sub-carriers OTSi) supported by the
transceivers.
Laser Output power:
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
This parameter provisions the Transceiver Output power, it can be
either a setting and measured value.
Receiver input power:
This parameter provisions the Min and Max input power supported by
the Transceiver, i.e. Receiver Sensitivity.
The above parameters are related to the Edge Node Transceiver and are
used by the Core Network control plane in order to calculate the
optical feasibility and the spectrum allocation. The parameters can
be shared between the Client and the Network via LMP or provisioned
to the Network by an EMS or an operator OSS.
3. Use Cases
The use cases are described in [RFC7698]
4. Signalling Extensions
The following sections specify the fields used in the RSVP-TE Path
and Resv messages to address the requirements above. The above
parameters could be applied to [RFC4208] scenarios but they are valid
also in case of non UNI scenarios. The [RFC7699] parameters remain
valid.
4.1. New LSP Request Parameters
When the E.N. wants to request to the C.N. a new circuit set-up, i.e.
the control plane wants to signal in the SSON network the Optical
Interface characteristics, the following parameters will be provided
to the C.N.:
Number of available subcarriers (c):
This parameter is an integer and identifies the number of OTSi in
an OTSiG. In this version of the document, it maps to the number
of Client ports connected to the Core ports available to support
the requested circuit.
Total bandwidth request:
e.g. 200Gb, 400Gb, 1Tb - it is the bandwidth (payload) to be
carried by the multiple carrier circuit (OTSiG). In alternative
the OTUCn can be used
Policy (strict/loose):
Strict/loose referred to B/W and subcarrier number. This is to
give some flexibility to the GMPLS in order to commit client
request.
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Subcarrier bandwidth tunability:
(optional) e.g. 34Ghz, 48GHz.
The TLV define the resource constraints for the requested Media
Channel.
The format of the sub-object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|B| Reserved | Carrier Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SSON LSP set-up request
Carrier Number: number of carrier to be allocated for the requested
channel (16-bit unsigned integer)
If Carrier Number == 0 no constraint set on the number of
carriers to be used
Total Bandwidth: the requested total bandwidth to be supported by
the Media Channel (32-bit IEEE float, bytes/s)
If Total Bandwidth == 0: no bandwidth constraint is defined
(B must be 0)
S strict number of subcarrier
- S = 0: the number of requested carriers is the maximum number
that can be allocated (a lower value can be allocated if
the requested bandwidth is satisfied)
- S = 1: the number of requested carriers is strict (must be > 0)
B Bandwidth constraints
- B = 0: the value is the maximum requested bandwidth (a lower
value can be allocated if resources are not available)
- B = 1: the requested bandwidth is the minimum value to be
allocated (a higher value can be allocated if requested
by the physical constraints of the ports)
Reserved: unused bit (for future use, should be 0)
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Note: bandwidth unit is defined in accordance to RFC 3471
chap. 3.1.2 Bandwith Encoding specification. Bandwidth higher
than 40Gb/s values must be defined (e.g. 100Gb/s, 150Gb/s
400Gb/s, etc.) or in alternative the OTUCn defined in
ITU-T G.709.
TLV Usage in RSVP-TE message:
Path from head E.N.: requested traffic constraints, the Head C.N.
must satisfy when reserving the optical resources and
defining the carriers configuration
The TLV can be omitted: no traffic constraints is defined
(resources allocated by C.N. based on a local policy)
4.2. Extension to LSP set-up specification
Once the WDM comtrol plane (running in C.N.) has calculated the Media
Channel path, the Spectrum Allocation, the Sub-carrier number and
frequency, the modulation format, the FEC and the Transmit power, the
path set-up confirmation MUST be sent back to the E.N. providing the
values of the calculated parameters:
Media Channel:
(Grid, C.S., Identifier m and n). as indicated in RFC7699
Section 4.1
Modulation format:
This parameter indicates the Modulation Formats to be set in the
Transceivers.
FEC Coding:
This parameter indicate what Forward Error Correction (FEC) code
must be used by the Transceivers (not mentioned in G.698). .
Baud rate of optical tributary signals:
Symbol (for Multiple bit per symbol) rate.
List of subcarriers:
This parameter indicates the subcarriers to be used for the super-
channel (OTSiG) in case the Transceiver can support multiple
carrier Circuits.
Carriers Central frequency granularity (J):
This parameter indicates the Central frequency granularity
supported by the transceiver, this value is combined with K and n
value to calculate the central frequency on the carrier or sub-
carriers.
Carrier Central frequency (see G.694.1 Table 1) (k):
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Grid, Identifiers, central frequency and granularity.
Laser Output power:
This parameter provisions the Transceiver Output power, it can be
either a setting and measured value.
Circuit Path, RRO, etc:
All these info are defined in [RFC4208].
Path Error:
e.g. no path exist, all the path error defined in [RFC4208].
4.2.1. Common Signal Description TLV
The TLV defines the carriers signal configuration.
All carriers in a Media Channel MUST have the same configuration.
It is aligned with TLV in 3.2.1 section in
[I-D.draft-meuric-ccamp-tsvmode-signaling].
The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA) is
as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Modulation ID | Bit/Symbol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC | Min OSNR Threshold |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| baud rate (Symbol Rate) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: OCh_General
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Traffic Type
- Modulation ID (Format) : is the modulation type:
BPSK, DC DP BSPSK, QPSK, DP QPSK, 8QAM, 16QAM,
32QAM, 64QAM, etc.
- Bits/Symbol(BPS) this indicates the bit per symbol in case of
hybrid modulation format. It is an off-set with values from 0
to 127 to be applied to the specified Modulation Format and
indicates the mix between the selected Modulation Format and its
upper adjacent modulation format.
(e.g. QPSK + 63 BPS indicates that there is a 50% MIX between
QPSK and 8-QAM = 2.5 bits per symbol) If value = 0 the
standard Modulation Format is applied.
- FEC: the signal Forward Error Corrections type (16-bit
unsigned integer), the defined values are:
- Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
- Min OSNR Threshold: An integer specifying the minimum accepted
threshold for the Optical Signal-Noise Ratio in 0.1 nm.
- Baud Rate: the signal symbol rate (IEEE 32-bit float,
in bauds/s)
- Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
Notes:
- The Path message from the E.C. can specify all or
only a subset of the parameters (e.g. the Modulation and the
baud rate as required but not the FEC) setting to 0 for the
undefined parameters.
When forwarding the Path message, the C.N. will set the
undefined parameters based on the optical impairment calculation
and the constraints given by the E.N.
- Custom codes (values > 0x8000) interpretation is a local
installation matter.
TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
- Path from the head E.N.: used to force specific transponder
configurations
- Path from the tail C.N.: set selected configuration on head node
- Resv from the head C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node
4.2.2. Sub-carrier List Content TLV
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
For Each carrier inside the Media Channel the TLV is used.
The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Carrier Index | j |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| k |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Sub-Carrier parameters
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Carrier setup:
- Carrier Index field: sub-carrier (OTSi) index
inside the OTSiG (corresponding to the media channel).
Identifies the carrier
position inside the Media Channel (16-bit unsigned integer)
The Carrier Index is the logical circuit sub-lane
position, a TLV for each value from 1 to the number of
allocated carriers must be present.
- J field: granularity of the channel spacing, can be a
multiple of 0.01GHz. - default value is 0.1GHz.
- K field: positive or negative integer (including 0) to multiply
by J and identify the Carrier Position inside the
Media Channel, offset from Media Channel Central frequency
- sub-TLVs: additional information related to carriers if needed
and the ports associated to the carrier.
In summary Carrier Frequency = MC-C.F. (in THz) + K * J GHz.
m=8
+-------------------------------X------------------------------+
| | |
| sub-carrier sub-carrier |
| +----------X----------+ | +----------X----------+ |
| | OTSi | | OTSi | |
| | o | | | o | |
| | | | | | | |
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-
| n=4 |
K1 -236 | +236 K2
<------------------------ Media Channel ----------------------->
4.2.3. Sub-carrier sub-TLV
The defined sub-TLVs are Port Identifiers and Carrier Power
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Source Port Identifier
The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8) is
as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | reserved | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Source Port Identifier
Source Port Identifier: the HEAD E.N. optical logical source end
point identifier (32-bits integer, ifindex). In case ot UUID usage
the parameter could be extended to 128 bits)
TLV Usage in RSVP-TE message:
- path from the head E.N.: used to force specific carrier ports
[optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario]
- Path from the tail C.N.: report selected carrier head ports
to tail C.N.
- Resv: report selected configuration to head E.N.
Destination Port Identifier
The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8) is
as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | reserved | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Port Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Destination Port Identifiers
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Destination Port Identifier: the local upstream optical logical
destination end point identifier (32-bits integer, ifindex),
In case ot UUID usage the parameter could be extended to
128 bits)
TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
- Path from head E.N.: used to force specific carrier ports
[optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario]
- Path from tail C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node
- Resv: report selected configuration to the head E.N.
Carrier Power
The format of this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 8)
is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | reserved | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| carrier power |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Carrier Power
Carrier Power: the requested carrier transmit power (32-bits IEEE
Float, dBm), optionally used to notify the configured
power (from E.N. to C.N.) or force the power to from
the C.N. to the E.N.
TLV Usage in RSVP-TE messages:
- Path from head the E.N.: used to force specific carrier
frequency/ports (optional use, e.g. with external PCE scenario)
- Path from tail C.N.: set selected configuration on tail node
- Resv from the head C.N.: set selected configuration on head node
4.3. RSVP Protocol Extensions Considerations
The additional information described in the draft, is related to the
Media Channel supported traffic. The parameters to be used by the
egress transceivers are carried in Path messages. In RSVP-TE
signaling, hop-specific information is encoded within the ERO as hop
attributes and WDM parameters are to be carried as sub-TLVs within
the Type 4 TLV [RFC7689], in the Hop Attributes SubObject
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Beside, some of the additional information defined is local to the
head/tail UNI link (e.g. the carrier/port association), while the
traffic spec info should be valid end-to-end.
There can be different methods to model and signal the carriers as
described in draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang. The
Media Channel, Network Media Channel and lables are well modelled by
the RFC7698, RFC7699 and RFC7792 reflecting the ITU-T Recommendations
G.694.1 and G.698.2.
Some work is in progress in ITU-T SG15/Q12 to define Network Media
Channel (group) that is capable of accommodating the optical
tributary signals (OTSi) belonging to optical tributary signal group
(OTSiG) (see new ITU-T Draft Recommendation G.807).
Other the encoding proposal reported in this draft, there are at
least two other methods to describe the parameters. An option is to
describe the OTSi carrier frequency relative to the anchor frequency
193.1THz based on a well-defined granularity (e.g. OTSi carrier
frequency = 193100 (GHz) + K * granularity (GHz) where K is a signed
integer value). A second option is to explicitly describe the OTSi
carrier frequency and the OTSi signal width in GHz with a certain
accuracy.
The second option which is independent of the n, m values already
defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1. The OTSi carrier frequency
is described in GHz with 3 fractional digits (decimal 64 fraction
digits 3). The OTSi signal width is described in GHz with 3
fractional digits (decimal 64 fraction digits 3) and includes the
signal roll off as well as some guard band.
The accuracy of 0.001 GHz does not impose a requirement on the
optical transceiver components (optical transmitter) in terms of
carrier frequency tunability precision. Today's components typically
provide a tunability precision in the range of 1..1.5GHz (carrier
frequency offset compared to the configured nominal carrier
frequency).
Future components may provide a better precision as technology
evolves. If needed, a controller may retrieve the transceiver
properties in terms of carrier frequency tunability precision in
order to be capable of properly configuring the underlying
transceiver.
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: As this description is arbitrarily proposed by
the authors to cover a lack of information in IETF and ITU-T, a
liaison request to ITU-T is needed. The authors are willing to
contribute to Liaison editing and to consider any feedback and
proposal from ITU-T.
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
5. Security Considerations
RSVP-TE message security is described in [RFC5920]. IPsec and HMAC-
MD5 authentication are common examples of existing mechanisms. This
document only defines new UNI objects that are carried in existing
UNI messages, thus it does not introduce new security considerations.
6. IANA Considerations
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
The IANA is requested to create, within the "GMPLS Signaling
Parameters" registry, two new sub-registries named "WDM
Modulation Formats" and "WDM FEC Types".
For both of them:
o the value 0 means "Pending selection",
o the range 1-65503 follows the Expert Review policy for
registration,
o the range 65504-65535 is for experimental use.
The "WDM Modulation Format" sub-registry is initialized as
follows:
+-------------+---------------------+
| Value | Modulation Format |
+-------------+---------------------+
| 0 | Pending selection |
| 1 | DPSK |
| 2 | QPSK |
| 3 | 8-QAM |
| 4 | 16-QAM |
| 5 | 32-QAM |
| 6 | 64-QAM |
| 7-63999 | Unallocated |
| 64000-65535 | Vendor specific use |
+-------------+---------------------+
The "WDM FEC Types" sub-registry is initialized as follows:
+-------------+---------------------+
| Value | FEC Types |
+-------------+---------------------+
| 0 | Pending selection |
| 1 | Reed Solomon FEC |
| 2 | Staircase FEC |
| 3 | O-FEC. |
| 4-63999 | Unallocated |
| 64000-65535 | Vendor specific use |
+-------------+---------------------+
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
7. Contributors
Antonello Bonfanti
Cisco
Via Santa Maria Molgora, 48 c
20871 - Vimercate (MB)
Italy
abonfant@cisco.com
Esther Le Rouzic
Orange
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22300
France
esther.lerouzic@orange.com
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ITU.G694.1]
International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.
[ITU.G698.2]
International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
applications with single channel optical interfaces",
ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.
[ITU.G709]
International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
G.709, June 2016.
[ITU.G872]
International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
January 2017.
[ITU.G874.1]
International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
G.874.1, November 2016.
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, DOI 10.17487/RFC4208, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4208>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.
[RFC7698] Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F.,
Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and
Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks",
RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698>.
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
[RFC7699] Farrel, A., King, D., Li, Y., and F. Zhang, "Generalized
Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
Label Switching Routers", RFC 7699, DOI 10.17487/RFC7699,
November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7699>.
[RFC7792] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3410>.
[RFC4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
September 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4181>.
Authors' Addresses
Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
Cisco
Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
20871 - Vimercate
Italy
Phone: +390392091462
Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com
Domenico La Fauci
Cisco
Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
20871 - Vimercate
Italy
Phone: +390392091946
Email: dlafauci@cisco.com
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draftdraft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-December 2021
Andrea Zanardi (editor)
FBK
via alla Cascata 56/D
38123 Povo, Trento
Italy
Phone: +390461312450
Email: azanardi@fbk.eu
Lorenzo Galvagni
FBK
via alla Cascata 56/D
38123 Povo, Trento
Italy
Phone: +390461312427
Email: lgalvagni@fbk.eu
Julien Meuric
Orange
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22300
France
Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Galimberti, et al. Expires July 2, 2022 [Page 20]