Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ccamp WG)
Authors Fatai Zhang  , Guoying Zhang  , Sergio Belotti  , Daniele Ceccarelli  , Khuzema Pithewan 
Last updated 2013-02-21
Replaces draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd Lou Berger
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                   Fatai Zhang, Ed. 
Internet Draft                                                    Huawei 
Updates: 4328                                              Guoying Zhang 
Category: Standards Track                                           CATR 
                                                          Sergio Belotti 
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent 
                                                           D. Ceccarelli 
                                                                Ericsson 
                                                        Khuzema Pithewan 
                                                                Infinera 
Expires: August 21, 2013                               February 21, 2013 
                                    
                                    
      Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 
  Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control 
                                    
                                    
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt 

Status of this Memo 

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with   
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering   
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that   
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-   
   Drafts. 

   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." 

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at   
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at   
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2013. 

    

Abstract 
 
   ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] has introduced new Optical 
   channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 1] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   and enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility.  

   This document updates RFC4328 to provide the extensions to the 
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to 
   control the evolving OTN addressing ODUk multiplexing and new 
   features including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex. 

    

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 

   1. Introduction .................................................. 3 
   2. Terminology ................................................... 3 
   3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 3 
   4. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 4 
   5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 6 
      5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters ................. 8 
      5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................ 10 
      5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters .... 10 
   6. Generalized Label ............................................ 11 
      6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label ................ 11 
      6.2. Procedures .............................................. 13 
         6.2.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 15 
      6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 16 
      6.4. Examples ................................................ 16 
   7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) ............... 18 
   8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations........... 19 
   9. Security Considerations ...................................... 20 
   10. IANA Considerations.......................................... 20 
   11. References .................................................. 22 
      11.1. Normative References ................................... 22 
      11.2. Informative References ................................. 22 
   12. Contributors ................................................ 23 
   13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 24 
   14. Acknowledgment .............................................. 26 
 
 
 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 2] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

1. Introduction 

   With the evolution and deployment of OTN technology, it is necessary 
   that appropriate enhanced control technology support be provided for 
   [G709-2012].  

   [OTN-FWK] provides a framework to allow the development of protocol 
   extensions to support GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) 
   control of OTN as specified in [G709-2012]. Based on this framework, 
   [OTN-INFO] evaluates the information needed by the routing and 
   signaling process in OTNs to support GMPLS control of OTN. 

   [RFC4328] describes the control technology details that are specific 
   to the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. This document 
   updates [RFC4328] to provide Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 
   Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions to support of control for [G709-
   2012].  

    

2. Terminology 

   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]. 

    

3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview 

   New features for the evolving OTN, for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 
   and ODUflex containers are specified in [G709-2012]. The 
   corresponding new signal types are summarized below: 

      -  Optical Channel Transport Unit (OTUk): 
         . OTU4 

      -  Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUk): 
         . ODU0 
         . ODU2e 
         . ODU4 
         . ODUflex 

   A new Tributary Slot Granularity (TS Granularity, TSG) (i.e., 1.25 
   Gbps) is also described in [G709-2012]. Thus, there are now two TS 
   granularities for the foundation OTN ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 containers. 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 3] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   The TS granularity at 2.5 Gbps is used on legacy interfaces while the 
   new 1.25 Gbps is used on the new interfaces. 

   In addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3, 
   4), the evolving OTN [G.709-V3] encompasses the multiplexing of ODUj 
   (j = 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, flex) into an ODUk (k > j), as described in 
   Section 3.1.2 of [OTN-FWK]. 

   Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) of Optical channel Payload Unit-k (OPUk) 
   (OPUk-Xv, k = 1/2/3, X = 1...256) is also supported by [G709-2012]. 
   Note that VCAT of OPU0 / OPU2e / OPU4 / OPUflex is not supported per 
   [G709-2012]. 

   [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control 
   for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. However, [RFC4328] 
   needs to be updated because it does not provide the means to signal 
   all the new signal types and related mapping and multiplexing 
   functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto- 
   Multiframe Structure Identifier (MSI) mode which assumes that the 
   Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit 
   direction and not checked in the receive direction. 

   This document extends the G.709 Traffic Parameters described in 
   [RFC4328] and presents a new flexible and scalable OTN label format. 
   Additionally, procedures about Tributary Port Number assignment 
   through control plane are also provided in this document. 

    

4. Generalized Label Request  

   The Generalized Label Request, as described in [RFC3471], carries the 
   Label Switched Path (LSP) Encoding Type, the Switching Type and the 
   Generalized Protocol Identifier (G-PID).  

   [RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new 
   code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital 
   Path) and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in 
   order to accommodate the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. 

   This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is 
   introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-2012] in 
   order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described 
   in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (OTN-TDM Switching Type) is 
   defined in [OTN-OSPF]. 

   This document also updates the G-PID values defined in [RFC4328]: 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 4] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   Value    G-PID Type  
   -----    ----------        
   47       ODU-2.5G: Transport of Digital Paths (e.g., at 2.5, 10 and 
                      40 Gbps) via 2.5Gbps TSG 

   49       CBRa:     Asynchronous Constant Bit Rate (CBR) (e.g., 
                      mapping of CBR2G5, CBR10G and CBR40G) 

   50       CBRb:     Bit synchronous Constant Bit Rate (e.g., mapping 
                      of CBR2G5, CBR10G, CBR40G, CBR10G3 and supra-
                      2.488 CBR Gbit/s signal (carried by OPUflex)) 

   32       ATM:      Mapping of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) cell 
                      stream (e.g., at 1.25, 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps) 

   51       BSOT:     Non-specific client Bit Stream with Octet Timing 
                      (e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 Gbps 
                      Bit Stream) 

   52       BSNT:     Non-specific client Bit Stream without Octet 
                      Timing (e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 
                      100 Gbps Bit Stream) 

   Note: Values 32, 47, 49 and 50 include mapping of Synchronous Digital 
   Hierarchy (SDH). 

   In the case of ODU multiplexing, the Lower Order ODU (LO ODU) (i.e., 
   the client signal) may be multiplexed into Higher Order ODU (HO ODU) 
   via 1.25G TSG, 2.5G TSG or any one of them (i.e., TSG 
   Auto_Negotiation is enabled). Since the G-PID type "ODUk" defined in 
   [RFC4328] is only used for 2.5Gbps TSG, two new G-PID types are 
   defined as follows:  

   - ODU-1.25G:  Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 
                 Gbps via 1.25Gbps TSG 

   - ODU-any:    Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 
                 Gbps via 1.25 or 2.5Gbps TSG (i.e., the fallback 
                 procedure is enabled and the default value of 1.25Gbps 
                 TSG can be fallen back to 2.5Gbps if needed) 

   In addition, some other new G-PID types are defined to support other 
   new client signals described in [G709-2012]: 

   - CBRc:       Mapping of constant bit-rate signals with justification 
                 into OPUk (k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) via Generic Mapping 
                 Procedure (GMP) (i.e., mapping of sub-1.238, supra-
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 5] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

                 1.238 to sub-2.488, close-to 9.995, close-to 40.149 
                 and close-to 104.134 Gbit/s CBR client signal) 

   - 1000BASE-X: Mapping of a 1000BASE-X signal via timing transparent 
                 transcoding into OPU0 

   - FC-1200:    Mapping of a FC-1200 signal via timing transparent 
                 transcoding into OPU2e 

   The following table summarizes the new G-PID values with respect to 
   the LSP Encoding Type: 

      Value       G-PID Type             LSP Encoding Type 
      -----       ----------             ----------------- 
      59(TBA)     G.709 ODU-1.25G        G.709 ODUk  
      60(TBA)     G.709 ODU-any          G.709 ODUk 
      61(TBA)     CBRc                   G.709 ODUk 
      62(TBA)     1000BASE-X             G.709 ODUk (k=0) 
      63(TBA)     FC-1200                G.709 ODUk (k=2e) 

   Note: Values 59 and 60 include mapping of SDH. 

    

5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 

   The Traffic Parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried 
   in the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The objects have 
   the following class and type: 

      -  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (TBA) 
      -  OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (TBA) 

   The format of Traffic Parameters in these two objects is defined 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 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     |  Signal Type  |    Reserved   |           Tolerance           | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     |                            Bit_Rate                           | 
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   Signal Type: 8 bits 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 6] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.1, with the following 
      additional values:  

       Value    Type 
       -----    ---- 
       4        ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps) 
       9        OCh at 100 Gbps 
       10       ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) 
       11       ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 and GE LAN) 
       12~19    Reserved (for future use) 
       20       ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 
       21       ODUflex(Generic Framing Procedure-Framed (GFP-F)),  
                resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 
       22       ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 
       23~255   Reserved (for future use) 
    
   NVC: 16 bits 

      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.3.  

   Multiplier (MT): 16 bits 

      As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.4. 

   Bit_Rate: 32 bits 

      In case of ODUflex including ODUflex(CBR) and ODUflex(GFP) signal 
      types, this field indicates the nominal bit rate of ODUflex 
      expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-
      precision floating-point number (referring to [RFC4506] and 
      [IEEE]). For other signal types, this field is not necessary and 
      MUST be set to 0. 

   Tolerance: 16 bits 

      In case of ODUflex(CBR) signal type, this field indicates the bit 
      rate tolerance (part per million, ppm) of the ODUflex(CBR) 
      encoded as an unsigned integer. The ODUflex(CBR) bit rate 
      tolerance is always specified as 100 ppm per Table 7-2 of [G709-
      2012], so it MUST be set to 100ppm. For other signal types, this 
      field is not necessary and MUST be set to 0. 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 7] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters 

   In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in 
   the ODUflex Traffic Parameters MUST be used to determine the actual 
   bandwidth of ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., Bit_Rate * (1 +/- Tolerance)). 
   Therefore the total number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link 
   can be reserved correctly. Here:  

         N = Ceiling of 

   ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance) 
   --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 

   In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of 
   the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate 
   after applying the 239/238 factor (according to Clause 7.3, Table 7-2 
   of [G709-2012]) and the transcoding factor T (if needed) on the CBR 
   client. According to clauses 17.7.3, 17.7.4 and 17.7.5 of [G709-
   2012]: 

   ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate = CBR client bit rate * (239/238) / T 

   The ODTUk.ts (Optical channel Data Tributary Unit k with ts tributary 
   slots) nominal bit rate is the nominal bit rate of the tributary slot 
   of ODUk, as shown in Table 1 (referring to Table 7-7 of [G709-2012]). 

              Table 1 - Actual TS bit rate of ODUk (in Kbps) 

      ODUk.ts       Minimum          Nominal          Maximum 
      ----------------------------------------------------------- 
      ODU2.ts    1,249,384.632    1,249,409.620     1,249,434.608 
      ODU3.ts    1,254,678.635    1,254,703.729     1,254,728.823 
      ODU4.ts    1,301,683.217    1,301,709.251     1,301,735.285 

   Note that: 

      Minimum bit rate of ODUTk.ts =  
         ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 

      Maximum bit rate of ODTUk.ts =  
         ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 + HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) 

      Where: HO OPUk bit rate tolerance = 20ppm 

   Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR)  
   nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 8] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex 
   service.  

   Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots 
   are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be 
   reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) MAY not be the same on different HO 
   ODUk links. 

   An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR) 
   Traffic Parameters. 

   As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service 
   requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C. 
   In other words, the ODUflex Traffic Parameters indicate that Signal 
   Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is 
   100ppm. 

     +-----+             +---------+             +-----+ 
     |     +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+     | 
     |     +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+     | 
     |     +=============+/| flex+-+=============+     | 
     |     +-------------+ |     |\+=============+     | 
     |     +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+     | 
     |     |             |         |             |     | 
     |     |   .......   |         |   .......   |     | 
     |  A  +-------------+    B    +-------------+  C  | 
     +-----+   HO ODU4   +---------+   HO ODU2   +-----+ 
    
       =========: TS occupied by ODUflex 
       ---------: free TS 

           Figure 1 - Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters 

   -  On the HO ODU4 link between node A and B: 

      The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex(CBR) equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 
      100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU4 
      equals 1,301,683.217 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots 
      N1 to be reserved on this link is: 

      N1 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,301,683.217 Kbps) = 2 

   -  On the HO ODU2 link between node B and C: 

      The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 + 
      100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU2 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                   [Page 9] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

      equals 1,249,384.632 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots 
      N2 to be reserved on this link is: 

      N2 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,249,384.632 Kbps) = 3 

5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters 

   [G709-2012] recommends that the ODUflex(GFP) will fill an integral 
   number of tributary slots of the smallest HO ODUk path over which the 
   ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2.  

         Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance 

              ODU type             | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance 
   --------------------------------+------------------+----------- 
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8   |   n * ODU2.ts    | +/-100 ppm 
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32  |   n * ODU3.ts    | +/-100 ppm 
   ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 |   n * ODU4.ts    | +/-100 ppm 

   According to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST 
   equal to one of the 80 values listed below: 

       1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts; 
       9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts; 
       33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts. 

   In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the 
   ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from 
   the Bit_Rate field. 

5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters 

   There is no Adspec associated with the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC. Either 
   the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the Default General 
   Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, 
   see [RFC2210]. 

   For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC 
   object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents 
   of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path 
   message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a 
   "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. 

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself, and 
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established, can support the 
   requested Signal Type, NVC, Tolerance and Bit_Rate values. If the 
   requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 10] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service 
   unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). 

   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node 
   MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad 
   Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). 

   Further, if the Signal Type is not ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3, and the NVC 
   field is not 0, the node MUST generate a PathErr message with a 
   "Traffic Control Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). 

    

6. Generalized Label 

   This section defines the format of the OTN-TDM Generalized Label.   

6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label 

   The following is the Generalized Label format for that MUST be used 
   with the OTN-TDM Switching Type: 

    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |         TPN           |   Reserved    |        Length         | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   ~                   Bit Map          ......                     ~ 
   ~              ......                   |     Padding Bits      ~ 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    
   The OTN-TDM Generalized Label is used to indicate how the LO ODUj 
   signal is multiplexed into the HO ODUk link. Note that the LO OUDj 
   signal type is indicated by Traffic Parameters, while the type of HO 
   ODUk link is identified by the selected interface carried in the 
   IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. 

   TPN (12 bits): indicates the TPN for the assigned Tributary Slot(s).  

      -  In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, only the 
         lower 6 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of 
         TPN MUST be set to 0. 

      -  In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU4, only the lower 7 
         bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of TPN 
         MUST be set to 0.  

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 11] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

      -  In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed 
         and this field MUST be set to 0. 

   Per [G709-2012], The TPN is used to allow for correct demultiplexing 
   in the data plane. When an LO ODUj is multiplexed into HO ODUk 
   occupying one or more TSs, a new TPN value is configured at the two 
   ends of the HO ODUk link and is put into the related MSI byte(s) in 
   the OPUk overhead at the (traffic) ingress end of the link, so that 
   the other end of the link can learn which TS(s) is/are used by the LO 
   ODUj in the data plane. 

   According to [G709-2012], the TPN field MUST be set as according to 
   the following tables: 

          Table 3 - TPN Assignment Rules (2.5Gbps TS granularity) 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN |          TPN Assignment Rules                | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   | ODU2  | ODU1  |1~4 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1                 | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       | ODU1  |1~16|Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1                 | 
   | ODU3  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       | ODU2  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs    | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 

                                      
          Table 4 - TPN Assignment Rules (1.25Gbps TS granularity) 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN |          TPN Assignment Rules                | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   | ODU1  | ODU0  |1~2 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU0                 | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       | ODU1  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs    | 
   | ODU2  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       |ODU0 & |1~8 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and      | 
   |       |ODUflex|    |ODUflexes' TPNs                               | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       | ODU1  |1~16|Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs    | 
   |       +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       | ODU2  |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs    | 
   | ODU3  +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   |       |ODU0 & |    |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and      | 
   |       |ODU2e &|1~32|ODU2es and ODUflexes' TPNs                    | 
   |       |ODUflex|    |                                              | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
   | ODU4  |Any ODU|1~80|Flexible, != ANY other existing LO ODUs' TPNs | 
   +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 12] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN MAY not be 
   corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-2012].  

   Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map field, 
   i.e., the total number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The valid values 
   for this field are 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 80.  

   In case of an ODUk mapped into OTUk, there is no need to indicate 
   which tributary slots will be used, so the length field MUST be set 
   to 0. 

   Bit Map (variable): indicates which tributary slots in HO ODUk that 
   the LO ODUj will be multiplexed into. The sequence of the Bit Map is 
   consistent with the sequence of the tributary slots in HO ODUk. Each 
   bit in the bit map represents the corresponding tributary slot in HO 
   ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot 
   will be used by LO ODUj or not. 

   Padding bits are added after the Bit Map to make the whole label a 
   multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padding bits MUST be set to 0 
   and MUST be ignored. 

6.2. Procedures 

   The ingress node MUST generate a Path message and specify the OTN-TDM 
   Switching Type and corresponding G-PID in the Generalized Label 
   Request object, which MUST be processed as defined in [RFC3473]. 

   The ingress node of an LSP MAY include label ERO (Explicit Route 
   Object) to indicate the label in each hops along the path. Note that 
   the TPN in the label ERO subobject MAY not be assigned by the ingress 
   node. In this case, the node MUST assign a valid TPN value and then 
   put this value into TPN field of the label object when receiving a 
   Path message.  

   In order to create bidirectional LSP, the ingress node and upstream 
   node MUST generate an Upstream Label on the out outgoing interface to 
   indicate the reserved TSs of ODUk and the assigned TPN value in the 
   upstream direction. This Upstream Label is sent to the downstream 
   node via Path massage for upstream resource reservation. 

   The ingress node or upstream node MAY generate Label Set to indicate 
   which labels on the outgoing interface in the downstream direction 
   are acceptable. The downstream node will restrict its choice of 
   labels, i.e., TS resource and TPN value, to one which is in the Label 
   Set. 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 13] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   The ingress node or upstream node MAY also generate Suggested Label 
   to indicate the preference of TS resource and TPN value on the 
   outgoing interface in the downstream direction. The downstream node 
   is not REQUIRED to use the Suggested Label and MAY use another label 
   based on local decision and send it to the upstream node, as 
   described in [RFC3473]. 

   When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL 
   object with an OTN-TDM label, it MUST firstly identify which ODU 
   signal type is multiplexed or mapped into which ODU signal type 
   accordingly to the Traffic Parameters and the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object 
   in the received message.  

   -  In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST retrieve the 
      reserved tributary slots in the ODUk by its downstream neighbor 
      node according to the position of the bits that are set to 1 in 
      the Bit Map field. The node determines the TS type (according to 
      the total TS number of the ODUk, or pre-configured TS type), so 
      that the node can multiplex the ODUj into the ODUk based on the TS 
      type. The node MUST also retrieve the TPN value assigned by its 
      downstream neighbor node from the label, and fill the TPN into the 
      related MSI byte(s) in the OPUk overhead in the data plane, so 
      that the downstream neighbor node can check whether the TPN 
      received from the data plane is consistent with the ExMSI and 
      determine whether there is any mismatch defect. Note that the 
      Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate the TS 
      type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps) 
      since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. In 
      some cases when there is no Link Management Protocol (LMP) or 
      routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG, 
      the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the 
      label format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the 
      length filed will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is 
      2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively. 

   -  In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the size of Bit Map field MUST be 
      0 and no additional procedure is needed. 

   When a downstream node or egress node receives a Path message 
   containing Generalized Label Request object for setting up an ODUj 
   LSP from its upstream neighbor node, the node MUST generate an OTN-
   TDM label according to the signal type of the requested LSP and the 
   free resources (i.e., free tributary slots of ODUk) that will be 
   reserved for the LSP, and send the label to its upstream neighbor 
   node.  

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 14] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   -  In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly 
      determine the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal 
      type and the tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to 
      1 in the Bit Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary 
      slots. The node MUST also assign a valid TPN, which MUST NOT 
      collide with other TPN value used by existing LO ODU connections 
      in the selected HO ODU link, and configure the Expected MSI 
      (ExMSI) using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN MUST be filled into 
      the label. 

   -  In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit 
      Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST NOT be included, so 
      Length field MUST be set to 0 as well.  

6.2.1. Notification on Label Error 

   When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL 
   object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify if the label is 
   acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node MUST generate a 
   ResvErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value" 
   indication.  Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message MAY include 
   an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception of label 
   semantics, downstream node processing a received ResvErr messages and 
   of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document. 

   Similarly, when a downstream node receives a Path message containing 
   an UPSTREAM_LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify 
   if the label is acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node 
   MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable 
   label value" indication. Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message 
   MAY include an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object.  With the exception of 
   label semantics, downstream node processing received PathErr messages 
   and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document. 

   A received label SHALL be considered unacceptable when one of the 
   following cases occurs: 

   -  The received label doesn't conform to local policy; 

   -  Invalid value in the length field; 

   -  The selected link only supports 2.5Gbps TS granularity while the 
      Length field in the label along with ODUk signal type indicates 
      the 1.25Gbps TS granularity; 

   -  The label includes an invalid TPN value that breaks the TPN 
      assignment rules; 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 15] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   -  The indicated resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map 
      field) are inconsistent with the Traffic Parameters. 

6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication 

   Per [RFC6344], the Virtual Concatenation Groups (VCGs) can be created 
   using Co-Signaled style or Multiple LSPs style. 

   In case of Co-Signaled style, the explicit ordered list of all labels 
   MUST reflect the order of VCG members, which is similar to [RFC4328]. 
   In case of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (NVC > 1), the 
   first label MUST indicate the components of the first virtually 
   concatenated signal; the second label MUST indicate the components of 
   the second virtually concatenated signal; and so on. In case of 
   multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT > 
   1), the first label MUST indicate the components of the first 
   multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; the second label MUST 
   indicate components of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated 
   signal; and so on. 

   Support for Virtual Concatenation of ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 signal 
   types, as defined by [RFC6344], is not modified by this document. 
   Virtual Concatenation of other signal types is not supported by 
   [G709-2012]. 

   Multiplier (MT) usage is as defined in [RFC6344] and [RFC4328]. 

6.4. Examples  

   The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label 
   format described in Section 6.1 of this document. 

   (1) ODUk into OTUk mapping:  

   In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label 
   indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the 
   corresponding OTUk. The following example label indicates an ODU1 
   mapped into OTU1. 

    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |       TPN = 0         |   Reserved    |     Length = 0        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   (2) ODUj into ODUk multiplexing:  

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 16] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   In such conditions, this label indicates that an ODUj is multiplexed 
   into several tributary slots of OPUk and then mapped into OTUk. Some 
   instances are shown as follow: 

   -  ODU0 into ODU2 Multiplexing: 

    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |       TPN = 2         |   Reserved    |     Length = 8        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0|             Padding Bits (0)                  | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   This above label indicates an ODU0 multiplexed into the second 
   tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 
   type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 2. 

   -  ODU1 into ODU2 Multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity: 

    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |       TPN = 1         |   Reserved    |     Length = 8        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0|             Padding Bits (0)                  | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   This above label indicates an ODU1 multiplexed into the 2nd and the 
   4th tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the 
   type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 1. 

   -  ODU2 into ODU3 Multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity: 

    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 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |       TPN = 1         |   Reserved    |     Length = 16       | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|       Padding Bits (0)        | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

   This above label indicates an ODU2 multiplexed into the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 
   and 7th tributary slot of ODU3, wherein there are 16 TS in ODU3 
   (i.e., the type of the tributary slot is 2.5Gbps), and the TPN value 
   is 1. 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 17] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) 

   [G7044] describes the procedure of ODUflex (GFP) hitless resizing 
   using Link Connection Resize (LCR) and Bandwidth Resize (BWR) 
   protocols in OTN data plane. 

   For the control plane, signaling messages are REQUIRED to initiate 
   the adjustment procedure. Section 2.5 and Section 4.6.4 of [RFC3209] 
   describe how the Shared Explicit (SE) style is used in Traffic 
   Engineering (TE) network for bandwidth increasing and decreasing, 
   which is still applicable for triggering the ODUflex (GFP) adjustment 
   procedure in data plane.  

   Note that the SE style MUST be used at the beginning when creating a 
   resizable ODUflex connection (Signal Type = 21). Otherwise an error 
   with Error Code "Conflicting reservation style" MUST be generated 
   when performing bandwidth adjustment. 

   -  Bandwidth increasing 

       For the ingress node, in order to increase the bandwidth of an 
       ODUflex (GFP) connection, a Path message with SE style (keeping 
       Tunnel ID unchanged and assigning a new LSP ID) MUST be sent 
       along the path. 

       The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful 
       completion of LCR protocols on every hop after Resv message is 
       processed. On success of BWR, the ingress node SHOULD send a 
       PathTear message to delete the old control state (i.e., the 
       control state of the ODUflex (GFP) before resizing) on the 
       control plane. 

       A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares 
       the old Traffic Parameters (stored locally) with the new one 
       carried in the Path message, to determine the number of TS to be 
       added. After choosing and reserving new free TS, the downstream 
       node MUST send back a Resv message carrying both the old and new 
       LABEL Objects in the SE flow descriptor. 

       An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow 
       descriptor MUST determine which TS are added and trigger the LCR 
       protocol between itself and its downstream neighbor node. 

   -  Bandwidth decreasing 

       For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style SHOULD also be 
       sent for ODUflex bandwidth decreasing.  
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 18] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

       The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful 
       completion of LCR handshake on every hop after Resv message is 
       processed. On success of BWR, the second step of LCR, i.e., link 
       connection decrease procedure will be started on every hop of the 
       connection. After completion of bandwidth decreasing, the ingress 
       node SHOULD send a ResvErr message to tear down the old control 
       state. 

       A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares 
       the old Traffic Parameters with the new one carried in the Path 
       message to determine the number of TS to be decreased. After 
       choosing TSs to be decreased, the downstream node MUST send back 
       a Resv message carrying both the old and new LABEL Objects in the 
       SE flow descriptor.  

       An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow 
       descriptor MUST determine which TS are decreased and trigger the 
       first step of LCR protocol (i.e., LCR handshake) between itself 
       and its downstream neighbor node. 

        

8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations 

   As described in [OTN-FWK], since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in 
   the network for the nodes that support the 2001 revision of the G.709 
   specification, control plane backward compatibility SHOULD be taken 
   into consideration. More specifically: 

   o  Nodes supporting this document SHOULD support [OTN-OSPF]. 

   o  Nodes supporting this document MAY support [RFC4328] signaling. 

   o  A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and 
      this document) is not REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both 
      procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator. 

   o  Ingress nodes that support both sets of procedures MAY select 
      which set of procedures to follow based on routing information or 
      local policy. 

   o  Per [RFC3473], nodes that do not support this document will 
      generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Switching 
      Type" indication. 

    

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 19] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

9. Security Considerations 

   This document introduces no new security considerations to the 
   existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473] and 
   [RFC4328], further details of the specific security measures are 
   provided. Additionally, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security 
   vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control 
   plane. 

    

10. IANA Considerations 

   Three RSVP C-Types are defined for OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters and 
   OTN-TDM Generalized Label in this document: 
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters 

   -  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects: 

      o  OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (see 
         Section 5) 

      o  OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (see Section 5) 

   -  OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: 

      o  OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: Class = 16, C-Type = 2 (see 
         Section 6.1) 

   IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
   (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see 
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters). "Generalized 
   PIDs (G-PID)" subregistry is included in this registry, which will be 
   extended and updated by this document as below: 

   -  Generalized PID (G-PID): 

       Name: G-PID 

       Format: 16-bit number 

       Values: 

       [0..31, 36..46] defined in [RFC3471] 
       [32]            defined in [RFC3471] and updated by Section 4 
       [33..35]        defined in [RFC3471] and updated by [RFC4328] 
       [47, 49..52]    defined in [RFC4328] and updated by Section 4 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 20] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

       [48, 53..58]    defined in [RFC4328] 
       [59..63]        defined in Section 4 of this document 

       Allocation Policy (as defined in [RFC4328]): 

       [0..31743]      Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC  
                       Action. 
       [31744..32767]  Assigned temporarily for Experimental Usage 
       [32768..65535]  Not assigned. Before any assignments can be 
                       made in this range, there MUST be a Standards 
                       Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations 
                       that covers the range being assigned. 

   "Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
   Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" will be defined by this 
   document as below: 

      Value    Signal Type                           Reference 
      -----    -----------                           --------- 
      0        Not significant                       [RFC4328] 
      1        ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps)                 [RFC4328] 
      2        ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps)                  [RFC4328] 
      3        ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps)                  [RFC4328] 
      4        ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps)                 [this document] 
      5        Reserved (for future use)             [RFC4328] 
      6        Och at 2.5 Gbps                       [RFC4328] 
      7        OCh at 10 Gbps                        [RFC4328] 
      8        OCh at 40 Gbps                        [RFC4328] 
      9        OCh at 100 Gbps                       [this document] 
      10       ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)                [this document] 
      11       ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200        [this document] 
               and GE LAN) 
      12~19    Reserved (for future use)             [this document] 
      20       ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)      [this document] 
      21       ODUflex(GFP-F), resizable             [this document] 
               (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 
      22       ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable         [this document] 
               (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) 
      23~255   Reserved (for future use)             [this document] 
    

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 21] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

11. References 

11.1. Normative References 

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 
             Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 
             Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated 
             Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. 

   [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 
             Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001. 

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 
             3471, January 2003. 

   [RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 

   [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical 
             Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006. 

   [RFC6344] G. Bernstein et al, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) 
             and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with 
             Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", 
             RFC6344, August 2011.   

11.2. Informative References 

   [OTN-FWK] Fatai Zhang et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of 
             G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress: draft-
             ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework, November 2012. 

   [OTN-INFO] S. Belotti et al, "Information model for G.709 Optical 
             Transport Networks (OTN)", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-
             ccamp-otn-g709-info-model, January 2013. 

   [OTN-OSPF] D. Ceccarelli et al, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
             OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 22] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

             OTN Networks", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
             ospf-g709v3, January 2013. 

   [G709-2012] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network 
             (OTN)", G.709/Y.1331 Recommendation, February 2012. 

   [G7044]   ITU-T, "Hitless adjustment of ODUflex", G.7044/Y.1347, 
             October 2011. 

   [RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation 
             Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006. 

   [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 
             Networks", RFC5920, July 2010. 

   [IEEE]    "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", 
             ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and 
             Electronics Engineers, August 1985. 

 
12. Contributors 

   Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs
   Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com

   Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent
   Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com

   Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies
   Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com

   Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson
   Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com

   Lyndon Ong, Ciena
   Email: lyong@ciena.com

   Biao Lu, infinera
   Email: blu@infinera.com

Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 23] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

13. Authors' Addresses 

   Fatai Zhang (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com

   Guoying Zhang
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
   Phone: +86-10-68094272
   Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn

   Sergio Belotti
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Optics CTO
   Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
   +39 039 6863033
   Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it

   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com

   Khuzema Pithewan
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089,  USA
   Email: kpithewan@infinera.com

Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 24] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   Yi Lin
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972914
   Email: yi.lin@huawei.com

   Yunbin Xu
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
   Phone: +86-10-68094134
   Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn

   Pietro Grandi
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Optics CTO
   Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
   +39 039 6864930
   Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com

   Rajan Rao
   Infinera Corporation
   169, Java Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA-94089
   USA
   Email: rrao@infinera.com

Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 25] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   John E Drake
   Juniper
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net

   Igor Bryskin
   Adva Optical
   EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com

14. Acknowledgment 

   The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for 
   their useful comments to the document. 

    

Intellectual Property 
 
   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. 

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or   
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are   
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into   
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions   
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 26] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions   
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of   
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including   
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be   
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. 

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards   
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of   
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the   
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,   
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the   
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and   
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such   
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 

 
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. 

 
 
Copyright Notice 
 
   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 
   document authors.  All rights reserved. 

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents 
   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. 

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November 
 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 27] 


draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt           February 2013 

   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 
   than English. 

 
 
Zhang                   Expires August 2013                  [Page 28]