CCAMP Working Group D. Ceccarelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft D. Caviglia
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: April 15, 2012 F. Zhang
D. Li
Huawei Technologies
S. Belotti
P. Grandi
Alcatel-Lucent
R. Rao
K. Pithewan
Infinera Corporation
J. Drake
Juniper
October 13, 2011
Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-00
Abstract
The recent revision of ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-V3] has
introduced new fixed and flexible ODU containers, enabling optimized
support for an increasingly abundant service mix.
This document describes OSPF routing protocol extensions to support
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) control of all currently defined ODU
containers, in support of both sub-lambda and lambda level routing
granularity.
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 April 15, 2012.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TE-Link Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. ISCD format extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Switch Capability Specific Information . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Example of TSG, T and S utilization . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Example of ODUflex advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Example of single stage muxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Example of multi stage muxing - Unbundled link . . . . . . 20
5.6. Example of multi stage muxing - Bundled links . . . . . . 22
6. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
1. Introduction
G.709 OTN [G709-V3] includes new fixed and flexible ODU containers,
two types of Tributary Slots (i.e., 1.25Gbps and 2.5Gbps), and
supports various multiplexing relationships (e.g., ODUj multiplexed
into ODUk (j<k)), two different tributary slots for ODUk (K=1, 2, 3)
and ODUflex service type, which is being standardized in ITU-T. In
order to present this information in the routing process, this
document provides OTN technology specific encoding for OSPF-TE.
For a short overview of OTN evolution and implications of OTN
requirements on GMPLS routing please refer to [OTN-FWK]. The
information model and an evaluation against the current solution are
provided in [OTN-INFO].
The routing information for Optical Channel Layer (OCh) (i.e.,
wavelength) is out of the scope of this document. Please refer to
[WSON-Frame] for further information.
1.1. 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].
2. OSPF-TE Extensions
In terms of GMPLS based OTN networks, each OTUk can be viewed as a
component link, and each component link can carry one or more types
of ODUj (j<k).
Each TE LSA can carry a top-level link TLV with several nested sub-
TLVs to describe different attributes of a TE link. Two top-level
TLVs are defined in [RFC 3630]. (1) The Router Address TLV (referred
to as the Node TLV) and (2) the TE link TLV. One or more sub-TLVs
can be nested into the two top-level TLVs. The sub-TLV set for the
two top-level TLVs are also defined in [RFC 3630] and [RFC 4203].
As discussed in [OTN-FWK] and [OTN-INFO], the OSPF-TE must be
extended so to be able to advertise the termination and switching
capabilites related to each different ODUj and ODUk/OTUk and the
advertisement of related multiplexing capabilities. This leads to
the need to define a new Switching Capability value and associated
new Switching Capability for the ISCD.
In the following we will use ODUj to indicate a service type that is
multiplexed into an higher order ODU, ODUk an higher order ODU
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
including an ODUj and ODUk/OTUk to indicate the layer mapped into the
OTUk. Moreover ODUj(S) and ODUk(S) are used to indicate ODUj and
ODUk supporting switching capability only, and the ODUj->ODUk format
is used to indicate the ODUj into ODUk multiplexing capability.
This notation can be iterated as needed depending on the number of
multiplexing levels. In the following the term "multiplexing tree"
is used to identify a multiplexing hierarchy where the root is always
a server ODUk/OTUk and any other supported multiplexed container is
represented with increasing granularity until reaching the leaf of
the tree. The tree can be structured with more than one branch if
the server ODUk/OTUk supports more than one hierarchy.
If for example a multiplexing hierarchy like the following one is
considered:
ODU2 ODU0 ODUflex ODU0
\ / \ /
| |
ODU3 ODU2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
ODU4
The ODU4 is the root of the muxing tree, ODU3 and ODU2 are containers
directly multiplexed into the server and then ODU2, ODU0 are the
leaves of the ODU3 branch, while ODUflex and ODU0 are the leaves of
the ODU2 one. This means that on this traffic card it is possible to
have the following multiplexing capabilities:
ODU2->ODU3->ODU4
ODU0->ODU3->ODU4
ODUflex->ODU2->ODU4
ODU0->ODU2->ODU4
3. TE-Link Representation
G.709 ODUk/OTUk Links are represented as TE-Links in GMPLS Traffic
Engineering Topology for supporting ODUj layer switching. These TE-
Links can be modeled in multiple ways. Some of the prominent
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
representations are captured below.
OTUk physical Link(s) can be modeled as a TE-Link(s). The TE-Link is
termed as OTUk-TE-Link. The OTUk-TE-Link advertises ODUj switching
capacity. The advertised capacity could include ODUk switching
capacity. Figure-1 below provides an illustration of one hop ODUk
TE-links.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| OTN | | OTN | | OTN |
|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |
| A | | B | | C |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|<-- TE-Link -->| |<-- TE-Link -->|
Figure 1: ODUk TE-Links
It is possible to create TE-Links that span more than one hop by
creating FA between non-adjacent nodes. Such TE-Links are also
termed ODUk-TE-Links. As in the one hop case, these types of ODUk-
TE-Links also advertise ODUj switching capacity. The advertised
capacity could include ODUk switching capacity.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| OTN | | OTN | | OTN |
|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |<- OTUk Link ->|Switch |
| A | | B | | C |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
ODUk Switched
|<------------- ODUk Link ------------->|
|<-------------- TE-Link--------------->|
Figure 2: Multiple hop TE-Link
4. ISCD format extensions
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor describes switching
capability of an interface [RFC 4202]. This document defines a new
Switching Capability value for OTN [G.709-v3] as follows:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Value Type
----- ----
101 (TBA by IANA) OTN-TDM capable (OTN-TDM)
Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows:
Switching Capability = OTN-TDM
Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) [as defined in RFC4328]
Both fixed and flexible ODUs use the same switching type and encoding
values. When Switching Capability and Encoding fields are set to
values as stated above, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
should be interpreted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switch Capability Specific Information |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Maximum LSP Bandwidth
The MAX LSP bandwidth field is used according to [RFC4203]: i.e. 0 <=
Max LSP Bandwidth <= ODUk/OTUk and intermediate values are those on
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
the branch of OTN switching hierarchy supported by the interface.
E.g. in the OTU4 link it could be possible to have ODU4 as MAX LSP
Bandwidth for some priorities, ODU3 for others, ODU2 for some others
etc. The bandwidth unit is in bytes per second and the encoding is
in IEEE floating point format. The discrete values for various ODUs
is shown in the table below.
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| ODU Type | ODU nominal bit rate |Value in Byte/Sec |
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| ODU0 | 1 244 160 kbits/s | 0x4D1450C0 |
| ODU1 | 239/238 x 2 488 320 kbit/s | 0x4D94F048 |
| ODU2 | 239/237 x 9 953 280 kbit/s | 0x4E959129 |
| ODU3 | 239/236 x 39 813 120 kbit/s | 0X4F963367 |
| ODU4 | 239/227 x 99 532 800 kbit/s | 0x504331E3 |
| ODU2e | 239/237 x 10 312 500 kbit/s | 0x4E9AF70A |
| | | |
| ODUflex for CBR | | MAX LSP |
| Client signals |239/238 x client signal bit rate | BANDWIDTH |
| | | |
| ODUflex for GFP-F | | MAX LSP |
|Mapped client signal | Configured bit rate | BANDWIDTH |
| | | |
| | | |
| ODU flex resizable | Configured bit rate | MAX LSP |
| | | BANDWIDTH |
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
A single ISCD MAY be used for the advertisement of unbundled or
bundled links supporting homogeneous multiplexing hierarchies and the
same Tributary Slot Granularity (TSG). A different ISCD MUST be used
for each different muxing hierarchy (muxing tree in the following
examples) and different TSG supported within the TE Link, if it
includes component links with differing characteristics.
4.1. Switch Capability Specific Information
The technology specific part of the OTN ISCD can include a variable
number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs. The muxing hierarchy
tree is encoded as an order independent list of them. Three types of
Bandwidth TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):
- Type 1 - Unreserved Bandwidth for fixed containers
- Type 2 - Unreserved Bandwidth for flexible containers
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
- Type 3 - Max LSP Bandwidth for flexible containers
The format of the SCSI is depicted in the following figure:
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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Fixed Container |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Unres-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Variable Container |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 (Max-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Variable Container |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: SCSI format
The format of the three different types of Bandwidth TLV are depicted
in the following figures:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal type | Num of stages |TSG|T|S| Res | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1 | ... | Stage#N | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODUj at Prio 0 | Unres ODUj at Prio 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODUj at Prio 2 | Unres ODUj at Prio 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODUj at Prio 4 | Unres ODUj at Prio 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODUj at Prio 6 | Unres ODUj at Prio 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Bandwidth TLV - Type 1 -
The values of the fields shown in figure 4 are explained after figure
6.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 2 (Unres-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal type | Num of stages |TSG|T|S| Res | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1 | ... | Stage#N | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Bandwidth TLV - Type 2 -
While Bandwidth TLV Type 3 is as follows:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 3 (Max-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal type | Num of stages |TSG|T|S| Res | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1 | ... | Stage#N | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Bandwidth TLV - Type 3 -
- Signal Type: Indicates the ODU type being advertised
Value Type
----- ------
1 ODU1
2 ODU2
3 ODU3
4 ODU4
10 ODU0
11 ODU2e
20 ODUflex CBR
21 ODUflex GFP-F resizable
22 ODUflex GFP-F non resizable
60000-65535 Experimental
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
- Number of stages: Indicates the number of multiplexing stages
level. It is equal to 0 when a server layer is being advertised,
1 in case of single stage muxing, 2 in case of dual stage muxing,
etc.
- TSG: Tributary Slot Granularity (2bit): Used for the
advertisement of the supported Tributary Slot granularity
- 00 - Reserved
- 01 - 1.25 Gbps
- 10 - 2.5 Gbps
- 11 - Reserved
- Flags:
- T Flag (bit 17): Indicates whether the advertised bandwidth
can be terminated. When T=1, the signal type can be
terminated, when T=0, the signal type cannot be terminated.
- S Flag (bit 18): Indicates whether the advertised bandwidth
can be switched. When S=1, the signal type can be switched,
when S=0, the signal type cannot be switched.
The value 00 in both T and S bits is not permitted.
- Priority :8 bits field with 1 flag for each priority. Bit set
indicates priority supported, bit cleared means priority not
supported. The priority 0 is related to the most significant bit.
When no priority is supported, priority 0 MUST be advertised.
- Stage#1 ... Stage#N : These fields are 8 bits long. Their
number is variable and a field is present for each stage of the
muxing hierarchy. The last one is always indicating the server
ODU container (ODUk/OTUk). The values of the Stage fields are the
same ones defined for the Signal Type field. If the number of
stages is 0, then no Stage fields are included.
- Padding: Given that the number of Stages is variable, padding to
32 bits field is used as needed.
- Unreserved Bandwidth/Max LSP BW : In case of fixed containers
(Type=1) the Unreserved Bandwidth field MUST be 16 bits long and
indicates the Unreserved Bandwidth in number of available
containers. Only Unreserved/MAX LSP BW fields for supported
priorities are included, in order of increasing prioritiy (0 to
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
7). In case the number of supported priorities is odd, a 16 bits
all zeros padding field is added. On the other hand, in case of
variable containers (Type 2-3) the Unreserved/MAX LSP Bandwidth
fields MUST be 32 bits long and expressed in IEEE floating point
format. Only Unreserved/MAX LSP bandwidth for supported
priorities MUST be advertised.
5. Examples
The examples in the following pages are not normative and are not
intended to infer or mandate any specific implementation.
5.1. MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD
This example shows how the MAX LSP Bandwidth fields of the ISCD are
filled accordingly to the evolving of the TE-link bandwidth
occupancy. In the example an OTU4 link is considered, with supported
priorities 0,2,4,7 and muxing hierarchy ODU1->ODU2->ODU3->ODU4.
At time T0, with the link completely free, the advertisement would
be:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switch Capability Specific Information |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Figure 7: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T0
At time T1 an ODU3 at priority 2 is set-up, so for priority 0 the MAX
LSP Bandwidth is still equal to the ODU4 bandwidth, while for
priorities from 2 to 7 (excluding the non supported ones) the MAX LSP
Bandwidth is equal to ODU3, as no more ODU4s are available and the
next supported ODUj in the hierarchy is ODU3.The advertisement is
updated 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 40Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 40Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 40Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switch Capability Specific Information |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T1
At time T2 an ODU2 at priority 4 is set-up. The first ODU3 is no
longer available since T1 as it was kept by the ODU3 LSP, while the
second is no more available and just 3 ODU2 are left in it. ODU2 is
now the MAX LSP bandwidth for priorities higher than 4. The
advertisement is updated as follows:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 = 100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 = 40Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 = 10Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 = 10Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switch Capability Specific Information |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Example 1 - MAX LSP Bandwidth fields in the ISCD @T2
5.2. Example of TSG, T and S utilization
In this example an interface with Tributary Slot Type 1.25 Gbps is
considered. It supports the simple ODU1->ODU2->ODU3 hierarchy and
priorities 0 and 3. Suppose that in this interface the ODU3 signal
type can be both switched or terminated, the ODU2 can only be
terminated and the ODU1 switched only. For the advertisement of the
capabilities of such interface a single ISCD is used and its format
is as follows:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU1 | #stages= 2 |0 1|T=0|S=1|Res|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU3 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU1 at Prio 0 | Unres ODU1 at Prio 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU2 | #stages= 1 |0 1|T=1|S=0|Res|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 | Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU3 | #stages= 0 |0 1|T=1|S=1|Res|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 | Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Example 2 - TSG, T and S utilization
5.3. Example of ODUflex advertisement
In this example the advertisement of an ODUflex->ODU3 hierarchy is
shown. In case of ODUflex advertisement the MAX LSP bandwidth needs
to be advertised but in some cases also information about the
Unreserved bandwidth could be useful. The amount of Unreserved
bandwidth does not give a clear indication of how many ODUflex LSP
can be set up either at the MAX LSP Bandwidth or at different rates,
as it gives no information about the spatial allocation of the free
TSs.
An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth could be useful
during the path computation process, as shown in the following
example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) with MAX LSP
Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In case 50Gbps of Unreserved
Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B and 3 ODUflex
LSPs of 10 GBps each, have to be restored, for sure only one can be
restored along Link B and it is probable (but not sure) that two of
them can be restored along Link A.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
In the case of ODUflex advertisement both the Type 2 and Type 3
Bandwidth TLVs are used.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 2 (Unres-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 (Max-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Figure 11: Example 3 - ODUflex advertisement
5.4. Example of single stage muxing
Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link supporting single stage
muxing of ODU1, ODU2, ODU3 and ODUflex, the supported hierarchy can
be summarized in a tree as in the following figure. For sake of
simplicity we assume that also in this case only priorities 0 and 3
are supported.
ODU1 ODU2 ODU3 ODUflex
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
ODU4
and the related SCSIs 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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU1 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU1 at Prio 0 =40 | Unres ODU1 at Prio 3 =40 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU2 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =10 | Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU3 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =2 | Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Unres-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 (Max-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S. type=ODUflex| #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Example 4 - Single stage muxing
5.5. Example of multi stage muxing - Unbundled link
Supposing there is 1 OTU4 component link with muxing capabilities as
shown in the following figure:
ODU2 ODU0 ODUflex ODU0
\ / \ /
| |
ODU3 ODU2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
ODU4
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
and supported pririties 0 and 3, the advertisement is composed by the
following Bandwidth TLVs:
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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =1 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU3 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =2 | Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU2 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =10 | Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU2 | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =8 | Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU0 | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =64 | Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =64 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU0 | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =80 | Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =80 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Unres-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S.type=ODUflex | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 0 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unreserved Bandwidth at priority 3 =100Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Max-var) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S.type=ODUflex | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU2 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 =10Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 =10Gbps |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Example 5 - Multi stage muxing - Unbundled link
5.6. Example of multi stage muxing - Bundled links
In this example 2 OTU4 component links with the same supported TSG
and homogeneous muxing hierarchies are considered. The following
muxing capabilities trees are supported:
Component Link#1 Component Link#2
ODU2 ODU0 ODU2 ODU0
\ / \ /
| |
ODU3 ODU3
| |
ODU4 ODU4
Considering only supported priorities 0 and 3, the advertisement is
as follows:
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
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 = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU4 | #stages= 0 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU4 at Prio 0 =2 | Unres ODU4 at Prio 3 =2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU3 | #stages= 1 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU3 at Prio 0 =4 | Unres ODU3 at Prio 3 =4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU2 | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU2 at Prio 0 =16 | Unres ODU2 at Prio 3 =16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Unres-fix) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sig type=ODU0 | #stages= 2 |TSG|T|S| Res |1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stage#1=ODU3 | Stage#2=ODU4 | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Unres ODU0 at Prio 0 =128 | Unres ODU0 at Prio 3 =128 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Example 6 - Multi stage muxing - Bundled lilnks
6. Compatibility
Backwards compatibility with implementations based on [RFC4328] can
be achieved advertising the [RFC4328] based ISCDs in addition to the
ISCD defined in this document.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [RFC3630] suggests
mechanisms such as [RFC2154] to protect the transmission of this
information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
9. Contributors
Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies
Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com
Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson
Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com
Marco Corsi, Altran Italia
EMail: marco.corsi@altran.it
Eve Varma, Alcatel-Lucent
EMail: eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com
Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs
EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Lyndon Ong, Ciena
EMail: lyong@ciena.com
Ashok Kunjidhapatham
akunjidhapatham@infinera.com
Snigdho Bardalai
sbardalai@infinera.com
Steve Balls
Steve.Balls@metaswitch.com
Jonathan Hardwick
Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Xihua Fu
fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Cyril Margaria
cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
10. Acknowledgements
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[OTN-FWK] F.Zhang, D.Li, H.Li, S.Belotti, D.Ceccarelli, "Framework
for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport
networks, work in progress
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-04", March 2011.
[OTN-INFO]
S.Belotti, P.Grandi, D.Ceccarelli, D.Caviglia, F.Zhang,
D.Li, "Information model for G.709 Optical Transport
Networks (OTN), work in progress
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-00", April 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
11.2. Informative References
[G.709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1),
February 2001.
[G.709-v3]
ITU-T, "Draft revised G.709, version 3", consented
by ITU-T on Oct 2009.
[Gsup43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
December 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Daniele Ceccarelli (editor)
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Bantian, Longgang District
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Bantian, Longgang District
Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com
Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Via Trento, 30
Vimercate
Italy
Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com
Pietro Vittorio Grandi
Alcatel-Lucent
Via Trento, 30
Vimercate
Italy
Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.com
Rajan Rao
Infinera Corporation
169, Java Drive
Sunnyvale, CA-94089
USA
Email: rrao@infinera.com
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft OSPF-TE extensions for OTN support October 2011
Khuzema Pithewan
Infinera Corporation
169, Java Drive
Sunnyvale, CA-94089
USA
Email: kpithewan@infinera.com
John E Drake
Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 29]
