Internet Engineering Task Force                      D. Hiremagalur, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           G. Grammel, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                           J. Drake, Ed.
Expires: January 26, 2015                                        Juniper
                                                      G. Galimberti, Ed.
                                                             Z. Ali, Ed.
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           R. Kunze, Ed.
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                           July 25, 2014


Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense
 Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage
the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application
                 draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08

Abstract

   This memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for managing Optical
   parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)
   systems or characterized by the Optical Transport Network (OTN) in
   accordance with the Interface Application Identifier approach defined
   in ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2.[ITU.G698.2], G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1]
   and its extensions.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2015.




Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  General Parameters - OCh_General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier . . . . . .   4
   5.  OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  OCh_Rs - receive parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   This extension is based on "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-
   08", for the relevant interface optical parameters described in
   recommendations like ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2].  The LMP Model from
   RFC4902 provides link property correlation between a client and an
   OLS device.  LMP link property correlation, exchanges the
   capabilities of either end of the link where the term 'link' refers
   to the attachment link between OXC and OLS (see Figure 1).  By
   performing link property correlation, both ends of the link exchange
   link properties, such as application identifiers.  This allows either
   end to operate within a commonly understood parameter window.  Based
   on known parameter limits, each device can supervise the received
   signal for conformance using mechanisms defined in RFC3591.  The
   actual route selection of a specific wavelength within the allowed
   set is outside the scope of LMP.  In GMPLS, the parameter selection
   (e.g. central frequency) is performed by RSVP-TE.




Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


   Figure 1 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] )


            +------+ Ss    +------+       +------+    Rs +------+
            |      | ----- |      |       |      | ----- |      |
            | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
            |      | ----- |      |       |      | ----- |      |
            +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
              ^  ^             ^              ^             ^  ^
              |  |             |              |             |  |
              |  +-----LMP-----+              +-----LMP-----+  |
              |                                                |
              +----------------------LMP-----------------------+

           OXC        : is an entity that contains transponders
           OLS        : generic optical system, it can be -
                        Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add
                        Drop Mux, etc.
           OLS to OLS : represents the black-Link itself
           Rs/Ss      : in between the OXC and the OLS



                       Figure 1: Extended LMP Model

2.  Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol

   This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow the Black Link
   (BL) parameters of G.698.2, to be exchanged between a router or
   optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached.
   In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects
   to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and
   [RFC6205].  The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different
   Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and
   status of their peer.  The intent of this draft is to enable the OXC
   and OLS systems to exchange this information.  These messages and
   their usage are defined in subsequent sections of this document.

       The following new messages are defined for the WDM extension for
       ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]/ITU-T G.698.1 [ITU.G698.1]/
       ITU-T G.959.1 [ITU.G959.1]
        - OCh_General                 (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_ApplicationIdentier     (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_Ss                      (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_Rs                      (sub-object Type = TBA)






Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


3.  General Parameters - OCh_General

   These are the general parameters as described in [G698.2] and
   [G.694.1].  Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-
   mib-08" for more details about these parameters [RFC6205] .

       The general parameters are
       1. Central Frequency - (Tera Hertz) 4 bytes (see RFC6205 sec.3.2)
       2. Single-channel Application Identifier Number in use
       3. Application Identifier Type in use
       4. Application Identifier in use

   Figure 2: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
   TBA) is as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type       |    Length     |         (Reserved)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Central Frequency                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Single-channel|  A.I. Type    |         (Reserved)            |
      | Application   |   in use      |                               |
      | Identifier    |               |                               |
      | Number in use |               |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Single-channel Application Identifier in use        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                           Figure 2: OCh_General

4.  ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier

   This message is to exchange the application identifiers supported.
   Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-08" for
   more details about these parameters.  There can be more than one
   Application Identifier supported by the OXC/OLS.  The number of
   application identifiers supported is exchanged in the "OCh_General"
   message.  (reference [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] and G.874.1 )










Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


   The parameters are
     1. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
     2. Single-channel application identifier Number
        uniquely identifiers this entry - 8 bits

     3. Application Indentifier Type (A.I.) (STANDARD/PROPRIETARY)

     4. Single-channel application identifier -- 64 bytes
        (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1]


   - this parameter can have
        multiple instances as the transceiver can support multiple
        application identifiers.



   Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
   TBA) is as follows:


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type       |    Length     |         (Reserved)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Number of Application                 |                     |
      |   Identifiers Supported                 |     (Reserved)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Single-channel|  A.I. Type    |         (Reserved)            |
      | Application   |               |                               |
      | Identifier    |               |                               |
      | Number        |               |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               Single-channel Application Identifier           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      //              ....                                            //
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Single-channel|               |  (Reserved)                   |
      | Application   |   A.I. Type   |                               |
      | Identifier    |               |                               |
      | Number        |               |                               |
      |               |               |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               Single-channel Application Identifier           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3: OCh_ApplicationIdentifier



Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


5.  OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters

   These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Source(Ss reference points).

       1. Output power
       2. Current Status           - 32 bit map of alarms TBD



   Figure 4: The format of the OCh sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
   is as follows:


       0                   1                   2                  3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type       |    Length     |         (Reserved)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Output Power                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Current Status                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                   Figure 4: OCh_Ss transmit parameters

6.  OCh_Rs - receive parameters

   These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Sink (Rs reference points).

       1.  Current Input Power      - (0.1dbm) 4bytes
       2.  Current Status           - 32 bit map of alarms TBD



















Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


   Figure 5: The format of the OCh receive sub-object (Type = TBA,
   Length = TBA) is as follows:

       The format of the OCh receive/OLS Sink sub-object (Type = TBA,
       Length = TBA) is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type       |    Length     |                   (Reserved)  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Current Input Power                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Current Status                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 5: OCh_Rs receive parameters

7.  Security Considerations

   LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204].  This
   document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing
   LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209].  This
   document does not introduce new security considerations.

8.  IANA Considerations

      LMP <xref target="RFC4204"/> defines the following name spaces and
      the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:

      -  LMP Message Type
      -  LMP Object Class
      -  LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
      -  LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
       This memo introduces the following new assignments:

      LMP Sub-Object Class names:

     under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in <xref target="RFC4204"/>)
        - OCh_General                  (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier    (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_Ss                       (sub-object Type = TBA)
        - OCh_Rs                       (sub-object Type = TBA)







Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4204]  Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
              October 2005.

   [RFC4209]  Fredette, A. and J. Lang, "Link Management Protocol (LMP)
              for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical
              Line Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.

   [RFC6205]  Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
              Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
              March 2011.

   [RFC4054]  Strand, J. and A. Chiu, "Impairments and Other Constraints
              on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054, May 2005.

   [ITU.G698.2]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
              multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
              applications with single channel optical interfaces",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.

   [ITU.G694.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
              for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"", ITU-T
              Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.

   [ITU.G709]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
              Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.709, February 2012.

   [ITU.G872]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
              optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
              October 2012.

   [ITU.G874.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
              network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
              model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.874.1, October 2012.







Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib]
              Kunze, R. and D. Hiremagalur, "A SNMP MIB to manage black-
              link optical interface parameters of DWDM applications",
              draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-02 (work in
              progress), March 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
   Juniper
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale - 94089 California
   USA

   Phone: +14089367461
   Email: dharinih@juniper.net


   Gert Grammel (editor)
   Juniper
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale - 94089 California
   USA

   Phone: +14089336958
   Email: ggrammel@juniper.net


   John E. Drake (editor)
   Juniper
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   HW-US,Pennsylvania
   USA

   Phone: +14123703108
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
   Cisco
   Via S. Maria Molgora, 48
   20871 - Vimercate
   Italy

   Phone: +390392091462
   Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com



Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-08        July 2014


   Zafar Ali (editor)
   Cisco
   3000 Innovation Drive
   KANATA
   ONTARIO K2K 3E8

   Email: zali@cisco.com


   Ruediger Kunze (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Dddd, xx
   Berlin
   Germany

   Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
   Email: RKunze@telekom.de


































Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires January 26, 2015               [Page 10]