Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7139.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Fatai Zhang , Guoying Zhang , Sergio Belotti , Daniele Ceccarelli , Khuzema Pithewan | ||
Last updated | 2013-04-07 | ||
Replaces | draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Vijay Gurbani
Ready w/nits
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead | |
Document shepherd | Lou Berger | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7139 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08
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: October 8, 2013 April 8, 2013 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.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 October 8, 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 October 2013 [Page 1] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 ................. 7 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 .................................................. 21 11.1. Normative References ................................... 21 11.2. Informative References ................................. 22 12. Contributors ................................................ 23 13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 24 14. Acknowledgment .............................................. 26 Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 2] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 3] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 4] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 5] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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. Note that the mapping types for ODUj into OPUk are unambiguously per Table 7-10 of [G709-2012], so it does not need to carry mapping type information in the signaling. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bit_Rate | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 6] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 Signal Type: 8 bits 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. This field MUST be set to 0 for ODUflex Signal Types. Multiplier (MT): 16 bits As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.4. This field MUST be set to 1 for ODUflex Signal Types. 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 MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt and SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes. 5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate carried 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: Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 7] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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 Note that the bit rate tolerance is implicit in Signal Type and the ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance is fixed and it is equal to 100ppm as described in Table 7-2 of [G709-2012]. Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate can allocate precise number of 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 Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 8] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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 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 Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 9] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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 MUST 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 and Bit_Rate values. If the requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 10] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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. - In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed and this field MUST be set to 0. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 11] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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 | +-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+ Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN MAY not be corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-2012]. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 12] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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. 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 Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 13] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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. - 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 Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 14] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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; - The indicated resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map field) are inconsistent with the Traffic Parameters. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 15] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 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: 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: Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 16] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 - 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 October 2013 [Page 17] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 18] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 19] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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) 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 [48, 53..58] defined in [RFC4328] [59..63] defined in Section 4 of this document Allocation Policy (as defined in [RFC4328]): Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 20] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 [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] 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. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 21] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 [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, February 2013. [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, April 2013. [OTN-OSPF] D. Ceccarelli et al, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- ospf-g709v3, April 2013. [G709-2012] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)", G.709/Y.1331 Recommendation, February 2012. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 22] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 2013 [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 October 2013 [Page 23] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 24] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 25] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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 October 2013 [Page 26] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-08.txt April 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. Zhang Expires October 2013 [Page 27]