Network Working Group S. Brorson (Axiowave Networks)
Internet Draft S. Dharanikota (Nayna Networks, Inc)
Expiration Date: January 2001 J. Drake (Calient Networks)
David Drysdale (Data Connection)
W. L. Edwards (iLambda Networks)
Adrian Farrel (Movaz Networks)
R. Goyal (Axiowave Networks)
Monika Jaeger (T-systems)
R. Krishnan (Axiowave Networks)
Raghu Mannam (Hitachi Telecom)
Eric Mannie (Ebone (GTS))
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel IPO-NSG)
J. Shantigram (PhotonEx Corp.)
E. Snyder (PhotonEx Corp.)
George Swallow (Cisco Systems)
G. Tumuluri (Calient Networks)
Y. Xue (UUNET/WorldCom)
Lucy Yong (Williams Communications)
J. Yu (Zaffire, Inc)
Editors:
Andre Fredette (PhotonEx Corp.)
Jonathan Lang (Calient Networks)
July 2001
Link Management Protocol (LMP) for DWDM Optical Line Systems
draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026].
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.
[Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
ABSTRACT
A suite of protocols is being developed in the IETF to allow
networks consisting of photonic switches (PXCs), optical
crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches, DWDM optical line systems
(OLSs), and optical add-drop multiplexors (OADMs) to use an MPLS-
based control plane to dynamically provision resources and to
provide network survivability using protection and restoration
techniques. As part of this protocol suite, the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [LMP] is defined to "maintain control channel
connectivity, verify component link connectivity, and isolate link,
fiber, or channel failures within the network." In it's present
form, [LMP] focuses on peer communications (eg. OXC-to-OXC). In
this document we propose extensions to LMP for use with OLSs. These
extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface
Requirements" described in [OLI].
CONTENTS
1. Introduction.......................................................5
2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems............................7
2.1. Control Channel Management.......................................8
2.2. Link Verification................................................8
2.3. Link Summarization...............................................8
2.3.1. Link Group ID..................................................9
2.3.2. Link Descriptor...............................................10
2.3.3. Shared Risk Link Group Identifier (SRLG):.....................11
2.3.4. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate.................................11
2.3.5. Optical Protection............................................12
2.3.6. Span Length:..................................................13
2.3.7. Administrative Group (Color)..................................13
2.4. Fault Management................................................14
2.4.1. ChannelStatus Message (MsgType = TBD).........................14
2.4.1.1. Channel Status TLV..........................................15
2.4.1.2. Group Status TLV............................................16
2.4.1.3. Message ID TLV..............................................17
2.4.2. ChannelStatusAck Message (MsgType = TBD)......................17
2.4.3. ChannelStatusReq Message (MsgType = TBD)......................18
2.4.3.1. Channel Entity TLV..........................................19
2.5. Trace Monitoring................................................19
2.5.1. TraceMonitor Message (MsgType = TBD)..........................19
2.5.1.1. Trace TLV...................................................20
2.5.2. TraceMonitorAck Message (MsgType = TBD).......................21
2.5.3. TraceMonitorNack Message (MsgType = TBD)......................22
2.5.4. TraceMismatch Message (MsgType = TBD).........................22
2.5.5. TraceMismatchAck Message (MsgType = TBD)......................23
2.5.6. TraceReq Message (MsgType = TBD)..............................24
2.5.7. TraceReport Message (MsgType = TBD)...........................24
3. Security Considerations...........................................25
4. Work Items........................................................25
5. References........................................................26
6. Author's Addresses................................................27
[Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
SUMMARY FOR SUB-IP RELATED INTERNET DRAFTS
(Section Requested by Bert and Scott)
SUMMARY
This work is motivated by two main issues. The first is the need to
enhance the fault detection and recovery support for photonic
switches (PXCs), and the second is to enhance the discovery of link
characteristics for optical networks in general.
GMPLS is being developed to allow networks consisting of photonic
switches (PXCs), optical crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches and
optical line systems (OLS) (or DWDM systems) to use an MPLS-based
control plane to dynamically provision resources and to provide
network survivability using protection and restoration techniques.
As part of this protocol suite, the Link Management Protocol (LMP)
[LMP] is defined to "maintain control channel connectivity, verify
component link connectivity, and isolate link, fiber, or channel
failures within the network." In it's present form, [LMP] focuses
on peer communications (e.g., OXC-to-OXC). In this document we
propose extensions to LMP for use with optical line systems. These
extensions allow the OLS to inform attached devices, such as routers
or PXCs, of (1) link properties needed for routing/signalling and
(2) link failures that can be used to drive failure recovery
protocols.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt
WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK
lmp-wdm fits in the Control part of the sub-ip work.
WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG
lmp-wdm enhances the ability of circuit switches and routers using
MPLS-based control protocols to dynamically discover link properties
and to learn about link status. The link properties can be useful
during signalling of paths, and the link status information is
essential for fault detection and recovery. Furthermore, lmp-wdm is
independent of any signalling protocol, so it can be used by both
distributed control system, such as GMPLS, and centralized
management systems.
Therefore, lmp-wdm supports the following CCAMP objectives:
[Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
. Define signalling protocols and measurement protocols such that
they support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies
(e.g., O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay
switches, MPLS, GRE) using input from technology-specific
working groups such as MPLS, IPO, etc.
. Define signalling and measurement protocols that are
independent of each other. This allows applications other than
the signalling protocol to use the measurement protocol; it
also allows the signalling protocol to use knowledge obtained
by means other than the measurement protocol.
. Abstract link and path properties needed for link and path
protection. Define signalling mechanisms for path protection,
diverse routing and fast path restoration. Ensure that multi-
layer path protection and restoration functions are achievable
using the defined signalling and measurement protocols, either
separately or in combination.
. Define how the properties of network resources gathered by the
measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing
protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS.
JUSTIFICATION
draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-00.txt (lmp-wdm) is a protocol proposal
intended to satisfy the optical link interface (OLI) requirements
(draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt - described separately). The
requirements document has achieved consensus in the CCAMP working
group. lmp-wdm has been discussed in the past two ccamp sessions
and a competing proposal, draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt (ntip), was
discussed in the last one. There has been a great deal of interest
in this work by both network operators and vendors.
[Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
1. Introduction
Future networks will consist of photonic switches (PXCs), optical
crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches, DWDM optical line systems
(OLSs), and optical add-drop multiplexors (OADMs) that use the GMPLS
control plane to dynamically provision resources and to provide
network survivability using protection and restoration techniques.
A pair of nodes (e.g., a PXC and an OLS) may be connected by
thousands of fibers. Furthermore, multiple fibers and/or multiple
wavelengths may be combined into a single bundled link. [LMP]
Defines the Link Management Protocol (LMP) to "maintain control
channel connectivity, verify component link connectivity, and
isolate link, fiber, or channel failures within the network." In
it's present form, [LMP] focuses on peer communications (eg. OXC-
to-OXC) as illustrated in Figure 1. In this document, extensions to
LMP for use with OLSs are proposed. These extensions are intended
to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface Requirements" described in
[OLI]. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with LMP as
defined in [LMP].
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
| OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^
| |
+----------------------LMP----------------------+
Figure 1: Current LMP Model
A great deal of information about a link between two OXCs is known
by the OLS. Exposing this information to the control plane via LMP
can improve network usability by further reducing required manual
configuration and also greatly enhancing fault detection and
recovery. Fault detection is particularly an issue when the network
is using all-optical photonic switches (PXC). Once a connection is
established, PXCs have only limited visibility into the health of
the connection. Even though the PXC is all-optical, long-haul OLSs
typically terminate channels electrically and regenerate them
optically, which presents an opportunity to monitor the health of a
channel between PXCs. LMP-WDM can then be used by the OLS to
provide this information to the PXC using LMP-WDM. The model for
extending LMP to OLSs is shown in Figure 2.
[Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
| OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | |
| +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP----+ |
| |
+----------------------LMP----------------------+
Figure 2: Extended LMP Model
In this model, an OXC may have multiple LMP sessions corresponding
to multiple peering relationships. At each level, LMP provides link
management functionality (i.e., control channel management, physical
connectivity verification, link property correlation) for that
peering relationship. For example, the OXC-OXC LMP sessions in
Figure 2 are used to build traffic-engineering (TE) links for GMPLS
signaling and routing, and are managed as described in [LMP]. At the
transport level, the OXC-OLS LMP session (shown in Figure 2) is used
to augment knowledge about the links between the OXCs. The
management of these LMP sessions is discussed in this draft. It is
important to note the an OXC may peer with one or more OLSs and an
OLS may peer with one or more OXCs.
Although there are many similarities between an OXC-OXC LMP session
and an OXC-OLS LMP session, particularly for control management and
link verification, there are some differences as well. These
differences can primarily be attributed to the nature of an OXC-OLS
link, and the purpose of OXC-OLS LMP sessions. As previously
mentioned, the OXC-OXC links provide the basis for GMPLS signaling
and routing at the optical layer. The information exchanged over
LMP-WDM sessions is used to augment knowledge about the links
between OXCs.
In order for the information exchanged over the OXC-OLS LMP sessions
to be used by the OXC-OXC session, the information must be
coordinated by the OXC. However, the two LMP sessions are run
independently and MUST be maintained separately. One critical
requirement when running an OXC-OLS LMP session is the ability of
the OLS to make a data link transparent when not doing the
verification procedure. This is because the same data link may be
verified between OXC-OLS and between OXC-OXC. Currently, the
BeginVerify procedure is used to coordinate the Test procedure (and
hence the transparency/opaqueness of the data links) as described in
[LMP].
To maintain independence between the sessions, it MUST be possible
for the LMP sessions to come up in any order. In particular, it
[Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
MUST be possible for an OXC-OXC LMP session to come up without an
OXC-OLS LMP session being brought up, and vice-versa.
This draft focuses on extensions required for use with opaque
transmission systems. Work is ongoing in the area of completely
transparent wavelength routing; however, it is premature to identify
the necessary characteristics to advertise. That said, the protocol
described in this document provides the necessary framework in which
to advertise additional information as it is deemed appropriate.
Additional details about the extensions required for LMP are
outlined in the next section.
2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems
As currently defined, LMP consists of four types of functions:
1. Control Channel Management
2. Link Verification
3. Link Summarization
4. Fault Management
All four functions are supported in LMP-WDM. Additionally, a trace
monitoring function is added.
In this document we follow the convention of [LMP] and use the term
"data link" to refer to either "component links" or "ports".
It is very important to understand the subtle distinctions between
the different types of links being considered in the extended LMP-
WDM. For example, in Figure 2 when OXC1 and OXC2 complete the
verify process, the links being verified are the end-to-end links
between the OXC's. It is the TE link composed of these "data links"
that are advertised in the routing protocols and used for the
purposes of connection setup. The verify procedure between OXC1 and
OLS1, on the other hand verifies the shorter link between these two
nodes. However, each of these shorter links is a segment of one of
the larger end-to-end links. The verify serves two functions: to
verify connectivity and exchange handles by which each data link is
referred. Furthermore, it is up to the OXC to correlate the handles
between the various LMP sessions.
Once a control channel has been established and the OXC-OLS
verification procedure has been completed successfully, the OXC and
OLS may exchange information regarding link configuration (link
summarization). An OXC may also receive notification regarding the
operational status from an OLS (ChannelStatus).
In subsequent sections, specific changes are proposed to extend LMP
to work with OLSs.
[Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
2.1. Control Channel Management
As in [LMP], we do not specify the exact implementation of the
control channel; it could be, for example, a separate wavelength or
fiber, an Ethernet link, an IP tunnel through a separate management
network, or the overhead bytes of a data link.
The control channel management for OXC-OLS links is the same as for
OXC-OXC links, as described in [LMP]. A flag in the LMP Common
Header is used identify the transmitting node as an OLS. This
informs the receiving node that the LMP-WDM extensions will be used
for the session. If the LMP-WDM extensions are not supported by the
node, it MUST reply to the Config Message with a ConfigNack Message.
2.2. Link Verification
The Test procedure used with OLSs is the same as described in [LMP].
The VerifyTransportMechanism (included in the BeginVerify and
BeginVerifyAck messages) is used to allow nodes to negotiate a link
verification method and is essential for transmission systems which
have access to overhead bytes rather than the payload. The VerifyId
(provided by the remote node in the BeginVerifyAck message, and used
in all subsequent Test messages) is used to differentiate Test
messages from different LMP sessions.
2.3. Link Summarization
As in [LMP], the LinkSummary message is used to synchronize the
Interface Ids and correlate the properties of the TE link.
Additional type-length values (TLVs) are defined to extend the
LinkSummary message to include link characteristics. The TLVs
described in the following subsections are transmitted as Data Link
Sub-TLVs in the Data Link TLV (see [LMP]). The link
characteristics, in general, are those characteristics needed by the
control plane for constraint-based routing and connection
establishment.
The format of the Data Link Sub-TLVs follows the LMP TLV format
described in [LMP]. The TLV format is shown below for readability:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (TLV Object) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
N: 1 bit
The N flag indicates if the object is a negotiable parameter
(N=1) or a non-negotiable parameter (N=0).
Note: none of the Data Link TLVs that are defined in LMP-WDM
are negotiable and the N bit MUST be set to N=0.
Type: 15 bits
The Type field indicates the TLV type.
Length: 16 bits
The Length field indicates the length of the TLV object in
bytes.
The following Link Characteristics are advertised on a per data link
basis.
2.3.1. Link Group ID
A local ID assigned to a group of data links. This ID can be used
to reduce the control traffic in the case of a failure by enabling
the systems to send a single message for a group instead of
individual messages for each member of the group. A link may be a
member of multiple groups. This is achieved by presenting multiple
Link Group ID TLVs in the LinkSummary message.
The Link Group ID feature allows Link Groups to be assigned based
upon the types of fault correlation and aggregation supported by a
given OLS.
For example, an OLS could create a Link Group for each laser in the
OLS. This group could then be associated with user ports during
discovery/initialization time. Multiple user ports might even be
associated with a single group (depending on the kind of
multiplexing supported in the system). If a laser fails, the OLS
can report a failure for the group. In the OXC this translates into
the failure of the associated link or links. Another group could be
assigned for a fiber to report all ports down that are associated
with that fiber if LOS is detected at the fiber level. Depending on
the physical OLS implementation, it may make sense to allocate other
groups, such as all ports on a particular circuit pack. With this
method, the OXC only needs to know about the externally visible
ports. The OLS can associate the ports with logical groups and the
OXC doesn't need to know anything about the physical OLS
implementation or how ports are multiplexed electrically or
optically within the system.
The format of the Link Group ID TLV is as follows:
[Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4
Group ID: 32 bits
Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data links in a
TE link. All data links are members of Link Group 0xFFFFFFFF by
default.
2.3.2. Link Descriptor
The Link Descriptor TLV represents the characteristics of the link
comprising the encoding type and bandwidth characteristics. This
information is needed for constructing a circuit. The OXC must
match the link information between incoming and outgoing interfaces
for a given path.
Note: This information may be a prerequisite for running the verify
protocol, thus it may be redundant when verify is being used.
The encoding for the information in this TLV are the same as those
for the link descriptor sub-TLV defined in [KRB00a].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Encoding Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Reservable Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Reservable Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 12
[Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
Link Encoding Type: 32 bits
See [KRB00a] for encoding.
Minimum Reservable Bandwidth: 32 bits
See [KRB00a] for encoding.
Maximum Reservable Bandwidth: 32 bits
See [KRB00a] for encoding.
2.3.3. Shared Risk Link Group Identifier (SRLG):
SRLGs of which the link is a member. This information is manually
configured on an OLS by the user. Used for diverse path computation.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | 4 * No. of SRLGs in link |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4 * No. of SRLGs in link
Shared Risk Link Group Value: 32 bits
List as many SRLGs as apply.
2.3.4. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate
This TLV provides an estimate of the BER for the data link.
The bit error rate (BER) is the proportion of bits that have errors
relative to the total number of bits received in a transmission,
usually expressed as ten to a negative power. For example, a
transmission might have a BER of "10 to the minus 13", meaning that,
out of every 10,000,000,000,000 bits transmitted, one bit may be in
error. The BER is an indication of overall signal quality.
[Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | BER |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4
Reserved: 24 bits
Must be set to zero on transmit and ignored on receive.
BER: 8 bits
The exponent from the BER representation described above. For
example, if the BER is 10 to the minus X, the BER field is set to
X.
2.3.5. Optical Protection
Whether the OLS protects the link internally. This information can
be used as a measure of quality of the link. It may be advertised
by routing and used by signaling as a selection criterion as
described in [GMPLS].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4
Reserved: 24 bits
Must be set to zero on transmit and ignored on receive.
Link Flags: 6 bits
[Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
Encoding for Link Flags can be found in [GMPLS].
2.3.6. Span Length:
Distance of fiber in OLS. May be used as a routing metric or to
estimate delay.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Span Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4
Span Length: 32 bits
Length of WDM span in meters expressed as an unsigned integer.
2.3.7. Administrative Group (Color)
The administrative group (or Color) to which the data link belongs.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Type = TBD | Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Group |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15 bits = TBD
Length: 16 bits = 4
Administrative Group: 32 bits
A 32 bit value.
[Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
2.4. Fault Management
Fault management consists of three major functions:
1. Fault Detection
2. Fault Localization
3. Fault Notification
The actual Fault Detection mechanisms are the responsibility of the
individual nodes and are not specified as part of this protocol.
Fault detection mechanisms may include such things as bit error rate
(BER) exceeding a threshold, loss of signal (LOS) and certain SONET-
level errors.
The fault notification and localization procedure is essentially the
same as in the current version of LMP, however, it is executed at
two levels in the extended OXC-OLS LMP.
OXCs continue to execute the OXC-to-OXC fault localization as
currently specified. The main difference is that the OLS may
initiate the process (both downstream and upstream). It is
important to note that the OLS does not participate in end-to-end
fault localization as described in [LMP].
The OLS may also execute its own fault localization process that may
allow it to determine the location of the fault much more
specifically than the OXCs can. For example, the OLS may be able to
pinpoint the fault to a particular amplifier along a set of fibers
that can span 1000's of kilometers.
To report individual link failure and recovery conditions, LMP-WDM
uses a new message called the ChannelStatus Message. The
ChannelStatus Message is described below.
2.4.1. ChannelStatus Message (MsgType = TBD)
The ChannelStatus message is sent over the control channel and is
used to report the operational status of a data link. While
channels are active, a ChannelStatus Message MUST be sent every time
that the status of a channel changes. A channel status message MUST
also be sent if a ChannelStatusReq Message is received.
Different acknowledgement rules are used depending on why the
ChannelStatus message is being sent. If an unsolicited
ChannelStatus message is sent due to a change in status of a data
link, the receiving node MUST acknowledge the ChannelStatus message
with a ChannelStatusAck. However, if the ChannelStatus message is
being sent in response to a ChannelStatusReq message, the
ChannelStatus message serves as the acknowledgement for the
ChannelStatusReq message. Therefore, the following acknowledgement
rules are used:
[Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
1. If a ChannelStatus message is sent in response to a
ChannelStatusReq message, the ChannelStatus message MUST
include the Message ID TLV.
2. A neighboring node that receives a ChannelStatus message that
does not include the Message ID TLV message MUST respond with a
ChannelStatusAck message.
The format of the ChannelStatus message is as follows:
<ChannelStatus Message> ::= <Common Header> <ChannelStatus>
The format of the ChannelStatus object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Status TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of
the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a
message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the
value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the
ChannelStatusAck message.
The ChannelStatus message MUST include at least one Status TLV. To
specify a status for the whole TE Link, use the group status TLV and
link group ID 0xFFFFFFFF.
2.4.1.1. Channel Status TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Condition | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Channel Status TLV is non-negotiable.
[Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
Length: 16 bits
The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format).
Local Interface Id: 32 bits
This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component
Interface Id) of the data link that has failed. This is within
the scope of the TE Link Id.
Condition: 8 bits
Status Condition:
Value Condition Description
----- --------- -----------
1 Signal Okay Data link is operational.
(OK)
2 Signal Degrade A soft failure caused by a BER
(SD) exceeding a preselected threshold. The
specific BER used to define the
threshold is may be configured, but is
typically in the range of 10-5 to 10-9.
3 Signal Fail A hard signal failure including (but
(SF) not limited to) loss of signal (LOS),
loss of frame (LOF), Line AIS, or a BER
(BIP-8 measure through B1/B2) exceeding
a specified value.
2.4.1.2. Group Status TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Group Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Condition | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Group Status TLV is non-negotiable.
Length: 16 bits
The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format).
Link Group Id: 32 bits
This is the Link Group ID.
[Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
Condition: 8 bits
The same conditions described in Section 2.4.1.1 are used.
2.4.1.3. Message ID TLV
The Message ID TLV MUST be included in the ChannelStatus message if
it is being sent in response to a ChannelStatusReq message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
This is copied from the ChannelStatusReq message being
acknowledged.
Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits
This is copied from the Common Header of the ChannelStatusReq
message being acknowledged.
2.4.2. ChannelStatusAck Message (MsgType = TBD)
The ChannelStatusAck message is sent in response to a ChannelStatus
message that does not include the Message ID TLV.
The ChannelStatusAck message is used to indicate that all of the
status TLVs in the ChannelStatus message have been receive without
error.
The format is as follows:
<ChannelStatusAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <ChannelStatusAck>
The ChannelStatusAck object has the following format:
[Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
This is copied from the ChannelStatus message being
acknowledged.
Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits
This is copied from the Common Header of the ChannelStatus
message being acknowledged.
2.4.3. ChannelStatusReq Message (MsgType = TBD)
The ChannelStatusReq message is sent over the control channel and is
used to request the status of one or more data link(s).
A neighboring node that receives a ChannelStatusReq message MUST
respond with a ChannelStatus message. The format is as follows:
<ChannelStatusReq Message> ::= <Common Header> <ChannelStatusReq>
The format of the ChannelStatusReq object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Channel Entity TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of
the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a
message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the
value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the
ChannelStatusReqAck message.
[Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
A ChannelStatusReq Message MAY include zero or more Channel Entity
TLVs. If no Entity TLVs are included, the receiving node MUST report
on all data links within the TE link.
2.4.3.1. Channel Entity TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Channel Entity TLV is non-negotiable.
Length: 16 bits
The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format).
Local Interface Id: 32 bits
This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component
Interface Id) of the data link for which status is requested.
This is within the scope of the TE Link Id.
2.5. Trace Monitoring
The trace monitoring features described in this section allow a PXC
to do basic trace monitoring on circuits by using the capabilities
on an attached OLS.
. An OLS Client may request the OLS to monitor a link for a
specific pattern in the overhead using the TraceMonitorReq
Message. An example of this overhead is the SONET Section
Trace message transmitted in the J0 byte. If the actual trace
message does not match the expected trace message, the OLS MUST
report the mismatch condition.
. An OLS client may request the value of the current trace
message on a given data link using the TraceReq Message.
2.5.1. TraceMonitor Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceMonitor message is sent over the control channel and is
used to request an OLS to monitor one or more data links for a
specific trace value. An OLS MUST respond to a TraceMonitor message
with either a TraceMonitorAck or TraceMonitorNack Message.
[Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
<TraceMonitor Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceMonitor>
The format of the TraceMonitor object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Trace TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of
the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a
message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the
value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the
TraceMonitorAck or TraceMonitorNack message.
The TraceMonitor message MUST include at least one Trace TLV.
2.5.1.1. Trace TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Trace Type | Trace Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Trace Message //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Trace TLV is non-negotiable.
Length: 16 bits
The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format).
Local Interface Id: 32 bits
[Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component
Interface Id) of the data link for which the trace monitoring
is requested. This is within the scope of the TE Link Id.
Trace Type: 16 bits
The type of the trace message:
1 û SONET Section Trace (J0 Byte)
2 û SONET Path Trace (J1 Byte)
3 û SDH Section Trace (J0 Byte)
4 û SDH Path Trace (J1 Byte)
Other types TBD.
Trace Length: 16 bits
The Length in bytes of the trace message provided.
Trace Message:
Expected message. The valid length and value combinatios are
determined by the specific technology (e.g., SONET or SDH) and
are beyond the scope of this document. The message MUST be
padded with zeros to a 32-bit boundary, if necessary.
2.5.2. TraceMonitorAck Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceMonitorAck message is used to indicate that all of the
Trace TLVs in the TraceMonitor message have been received and
processed correctly.
The format is as follows:
<TraceMonitorAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceMonitorAck>
The TraceMonitorAck object has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
This is copied from the TraceMonitor message being
acknowledged.
Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits
[Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMonitor
message being acknowledged.
2.5.3. TraceMonitorNack Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceMonitorNack message is used to indicate that one or more of
the Trace TLVs in the TraceMonitor message was not processed
correctly. This could be because the trace monitoring requested is
not supported or there was an error in one of the values.
The format is as follows:
<TraceMonitorNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceMonitorNack>
The TraceMonitorNack object has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Rejected Trace TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
This is copied from the TraceMonitor message being
acknowledged.
Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits
This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMonitor
message being acknowledged.
Rejected Trace TLVs: 32 bits
Trace TLVs that were not accepted. Copied from TraceMonitor
message. If none are included, it means that all Trace TLVs
are rejected.
2.5.4. TraceMismatch Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceMismatch message is sent over the control channel and is
used to report a trace mismatch on a data link for which trace
monitoring was requested.
[Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
A neighboring node that receives a TraceMismatch message MUST
respond with a TraceMismatchAck message. The format is as follows:
<TraceMismatch Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceMismatch>
The format of the TraceMismatch object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Local Interface Ids //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of
the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a
message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the
value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the
TraceMismatchAck message.
Local Interface Id: 32 bits per Id
This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component
Interface Id) of the data link that has a trace mismatch. This
is within the scope of the TE Link Id. Multiple Local
Interface Ids may be reported in the same message.
2.5.5. TraceMismatchAck Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceMismatchAck message is used to acknowledge receipt of a
TraceMismatch message.
The format is as follows:
<TraceMismatchAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceMismatchAck>
The TraceMismatchAck object has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
[Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
This is copied from the TraceMismatch message being
acknowledged.
Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits
This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMismatch
message being acknowledged.
2.5.6. TraceReq Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceReq message is sent over the control channel and is used to
request the current trace value of indicated data links.
A node that receives a TraceReq message MUST respond with a
TraceReport message. The format is as follows:
<TraceReq Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceReq>
The format of the TraceReq object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Channel Entity TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of
the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a
message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the
value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the
TraceReport message.
A TraceReq Message may include zero or more Channel Entity TLVs (as
described in Section 2.4.3). If no Channel Entity TLVs are
included, the receiving node MUST report on all data links within
the TE link.
2.5.7. TraceReport Message (MsgType = TBD)
The TraceReport message is sent over the control channel after
receiving a TraceReq message.
[Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
<TraceReport Message> ::= <Common Header> <TraceReport>
The format of the TraceReport object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MessageId |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Trace TLVs) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MessageId: 32 bits
This is copied from the TraceReq message being acknowledged.
The TraceReport message MUST include a Trace TLV (as described in
Section 2.5.1) for each link requested.
3. Security Considerations
LMP-WDM introduces no new security issues over [LMP]. As in [LMP],
LMP-WDM exchanges may be authenticated using the Cryptographic
authentication option. MD5 is currently the only message digest
algorithm specified.
4. Work Items
The following work items have been identified. They will be
addressed in a future version of this draft:
1. Error messages may be needed in response to some of the defined
messages.
2. More discussion on Trace Monitoring procedures is needed.
3. Provide description of procedures and interactions for running
LMP and LMP-WDM on the same link. Include description of how
control over link transparency works during the Verify
procedure.
4. Determine whether some functions are optional and, if so,
provide a capability negotiation mechanism.
[Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
5. References
[GMPLS] Berger, L., Ashwood-Smith, Peter, editors,
"Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description",
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-
02.txt, (work in progress), March 2001.
[Bra96] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[DBC00] Drake, J., Blumenthal, D., Ceuppens, L., et al.,
"Interworking between Photonic (Optical) Switches and
Transmission Systems over Optical Link Interface (OLI)
using Extensions to LMP", OIF Contribution
oif2000.254, (work in progress), November 2000.
[KRB00] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering," Internet Draft, draft-
kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt, (work in progress), July
2000.
[KRB00a] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A., et al, "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," Internet
Draft, draft-kompella-ospf-extensions-00.txt, (work in
progress), July 2000.
[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., Drake, J., Kompella, K., Rekhter,
Y., Berger, L., Saha, D., Basak, D., Sandick, H.,
Zinin, A., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", Internet
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-03.txt, (work in progress),
July 2001.
[OLI] Fredette, A., Editor, "Optical Link Interface
Requirements", Internet Draft, draft-many-oli-reqts-
00.txt, (work in progress), June 2001.
[SDH] ITU-T G.707, "Network node interface for the
synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)", 1996.
[SONET] GR-253-CORE, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)
Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria", Telcordia
Technologies, Issue 3, September 2000
[T.50] ITU-T T.50, "International Reference Alphabet (IRA)
(formerly International Alphabet No. 5 or IA5)
Information technology 7-bit coded character set for
information interchange.", 1992.
[Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
6. Author's Addresses
Stuart Brorson Monika Jaeger
Axiowave Networks T-systems
100 Nickerson Road Monika.Jaeger@t-systems.de
Marlborough, MA 01752
email: sdb@axiowave.com Ram Krishnan
Axiowave Networks
Sudheer Dharanikota 100 Nickerson Road
Nayna Networks, Inc. Marlborough, MA 01752
157 Topaz Drive, email: ram@axiowave.com
Milpitas, CA 95035
email: sudheer@nayna.com Jonathan P. Lang
Calient Networks
John Drake Court25 Castilian Drive
Calient Networks Goleta, CA 93117
5853 Rue Ferrari email: jplang@calient.net
San Jose, CA 95138
email: jdrake@calient.net Raghu Mannam
Hitachi Telecom (USA), Inc.
David Drysdale rmannam@hitel.com
Data Connection Ltd
dmd@dataconnection.com Eric Mannie
Ebone (GTS)
W. L. Edwards Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
iLambda Networks 1560 Hoeilaart
Aspen, CO Belgium
email: texas@ilambda.com Email: eric.mannie@gts.com
Adrian Farrel (Movaz Networks) Dimitri Papadimitriou
Movaz Networks, Inc. Alcatel IPO NSG-NA
7926 Jones Branch Drive, Francis Wellesplein 1,
Suite 615 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
McLean, VA 22102 email: dimitri.Papadimitriou
email: afarrel@movaz.com @alcatel.be
Andre Fredette Jagan Shantigram
PhotonEx Corporation PhotonEx Corporation
8C Preston Court 8C Preston
Bedford, MA 01730 Bedford, MA 01730
email: fredette@photonex.com email: jagan@photonex.com
Rohit Goyal Ed Snyder
Axiowave Networks PhotonEx Corporation
100 Nickerson Road 8C Preston Court
Marlborough, MA 01752 Bedford, MA 01730
email: rgoyal@axiowave.com email: esnyder@photonex.com
[Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001
George Swallow Lucy Yong
Cisco Systems, Inc. Williams Communications
250 Apollo Drive 2 East First Street
Chelmsford, MA 01824 Tulsa, OK 74172
Email: swallow@cisco.com lucy.yong@wilcom.com
Gopala Tumuluri John Yu
Calient Networks Zaffire, Inc
5853 Rue Ferrari 2630 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95134
email: krishna@calient.net email: jzyu@zaffire.com
Yong Xue
UUNET/WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Ashburn, VA 20148
email: yxue@uu.net
[Page 28]