Network Working Group Fatai Zhang, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei
Updates: 4328 Guoying Zhang
Category: Standards Track CATR
Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Khuzema Pithewan
Infinera
Expires: August 21, 2013 February 21, 2013
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2013.
Abstract
ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] has introduced new Optical
channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex)
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
and enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility.
This document updates RFC4328 to provide the extensions to the
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
control the evolving OTN addressing ODUk multiplexing and new
features including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3
2. Terminology ................................................... 3
3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview ............ 3
4. Generalized Label Request ..................................... 4
5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709 ...... 6
5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters ................. 8
5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters ................ 10
5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters .... 10
6. Generalized Label ............................................ 11
6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label ................ 11
6.2. Procedures .............................................. 13
6.2.1. Notification on Label Error ........................ 15
6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication ..... 16
6.4. Examples ................................................ 16
7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP) ............... 18
8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations........... 19
9. Security Considerations ...................................... 20
10. IANA Considerations.......................................... 20
11. References .................................................. 22
11.1. Normative References ................................... 22
11.2. Informative References ................................. 22
12. Contributors ................................................ 23
13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 24
14. Acknowledgment .............................................. 26
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
1. Introduction
With the evolution and deployment of OTN technology, it is necessary
that appropriate enhanced control technology support be provided for
[G709-2012].
[OTN-FWK] provides a framework to allow the development of protocol
extensions to support GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
control of OTN as specified in [G709-2012]. Based on this framework,
[OTN-INFO] evaluates the information needed by the routing and
signaling process in OTNs to support GMPLS control of OTN.
[RFC4328] describes the control technology details that are specific
to the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. This document
updates [RFC4328] to provide Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions to support of control for [G709-
2012].
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 - Overview
New features for the evolving OTN, for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4
and ODUflex containers are specified in [G709-2012]. The
corresponding new signal types are summarized below:
- Optical Channel Transport Unit (OTUk):
. OTU4
- Optical Channel Data Unit (ODUk):
. ODU0
. ODU2e
. ODU4
. ODUflex
A new Tributary Slot Granularity (TS Granularity, TSG) (i.e., 1.25
Gbps) is also described in [G709-2012]. Thus, there are now two TS
granularities for the foundation OTN ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 containers.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
The TS granularity at 2.5 Gbps is used on legacy interfaces while the
new 1.25 Gbps is used on the new interfaces.
In addition to the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk (k = 1, 2, 3,
4), the evolving OTN [G.709-V3] encompasses the multiplexing of ODUj
(j = 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, flex) into an ODUk (k > j), as described in
Section 3.1.2 of [OTN-FWK].
Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) of Optical channel Payload Unit-k (OPUk)
(OPUk-Xv, k = 1/2/3, X = 1...256) is also supported by [G709-2012].
Note that VCAT of OPU0 / OPU2e / OPU4 / OPUflex is not supported per
[G709-2012].
[RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. However, [RFC4328]
needs to be updated because it does not provide the means to signal
all the new signal types and related mapping and multiplexing
functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-
Multiframe Structure Identifier (MSI) mode which assumes that the
Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit
direction and not checked in the receive direction.
This document extends the G.709 Traffic Parameters described in
[RFC4328] and presents a new flexible and scalable OTN label format.
Additionally, procedures about Tributary Port Number assignment
through control plane are also provided in this document.
4. Generalized Label Request
The Generalized Label Request, as described in [RFC3471], carries the
Label Switched Path (LSP) Encoding Type, the Switching Type and the
Generalized Protocol Identifier (G-PID).
[RFC4328] extends the Generalized Label Request, introducing two new
code-points for the LSP Encoding Type (i.e., G.709 ODUk (Digital
Path) and G.709 Optical Channel) and adding a list of G-PID values in
order to accommodate the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.
This document follows these extensions and a new Switching Type is
introduced to indicate the ODUk switching capability [G709-2012] in
order to support backward compatibility with [RFC4328], as described
in [OTN-FWK]. The new Switching Type (OTN-TDM Switching Type) is
defined in [OTN-OSPF].
This document also updates the G-PID values defined in [RFC4328]:
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
Value G-PID Type
----- ----------
47 ODU-2.5G: Transport of Digital Paths (e.g., at 2.5, 10 and
40 Gbps) via 2.5Gbps TSG
49 CBRa: Asynchronous Constant Bit Rate (CBR) (e.g.,
mapping of CBR2G5, CBR10G and CBR40G)
50 CBRb: Bit synchronous Constant Bit Rate (e.g., mapping
of CBR2G5, CBR10G, CBR40G, CBR10G3 and supra-
2.488 CBR Gbit/s signal (carried by OPUflex))
32 ATM: Mapping of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) cell
stream (e.g., at 1.25, 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps)
51 BSOT: Non-specific client Bit Stream with Octet Timing
(e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100 Gbps
Bit Stream)
52 BSNT: Non-specific client Bit Stream without Octet
Timing (e.g., Mapping of 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and
100 Gbps Bit Stream)
Note: Values 32, 47, 49 and 50 include mapping of Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH).
In the case of ODU multiplexing, the Lower Order ODU (LO ODU) (i.e.,
the client signal) may be multiplexed into Higher Order ODU (HO ODU)
via 1.25G TSG, 2.5G TSG or any one of them (i.e., TSG
Auto_Negotiation is enabled). Since the G-PID type "ODUk" defined in
[RFC4328] is only used for 2.5Gbps TSG, two new G-PID types are
defined as follows:
- ODU-1.25G: Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100
Gbps via 1.25Gbps TSG
- ODU-any: Transport of Digital Paths at 1.25, 2.5, 10, 40 and 100
Gbps via 1.25 or 2.5Gbps TSG (i.e., the fallback
procedure is enabled and the default value of 1.25Gbps
TSG can be fallen back to 2.5Gbps if needed)
In addition, some other new G-PID types are defined to support other
new client signals described in [G709-2012]:
- CBRc: Mapping of constant bit-rate signals with justification
into OPUk (k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) via Generic Mapping
Procedure (GMP) (i.e., mapping of sub-1.238, supra-
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
1.238 to sub-2.488, close-to 9.995, close-to 40.149
and close-to 104.134 Gbit/s CBR client signal)
- 1000BASE-X: Mapping of a 1000BASE-X signal via timing transparent
transcoding into OPU0
- FC-1200: Mapping of a FC-1200 signal via timing transparent
transcoding into OPU2e
The following table summarizes the new G-PID values with respect to
the LSP Encoding Type:
Value G-PID Type LSP Encoding Type
----- ---------- -----------------
59(TBA) G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk
60(TBA) G.709 ODU-any G.709 ODUk
61(TBA) CBRc G.709 ODUk
62(TBA) 1000BASE-X G.709 ODUk (k=0)
63(TBA) FC-1200 G.709 ODUk (k=2e)
Note: Values 59 and 60 include mapping of SDH.
5. Extensions for Traffic Parameters for the Evolving G.709
The Traffic Parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried
in the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The objects have
the following class and type:
- OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (TBA)
- OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (TBA)
The format of Traffic Parameters in these two objects is defined as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signal Type | Reserved | Tolerance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NVC | Multiplier (MT) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bit_Rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Signal Type: 8 bits
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.1, with the following
additional values:
Value Type
----- ----
4 ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps)
9 OCh at 100 Gbps
10 ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)
11 ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 and GE LAN)
12~19 Reserved (for future use)
20 ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
21 ODUflex(Generic Framing Procedure-Framed (GFP-F)),
resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
22 ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
23~255 Reserved (for future use)
NVC: 16 bits
As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.3.
Multiplier (MT): 16 bits
As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.4.
Bit_Rate: 32 bits
In case of ODUflex including ODUflex(CBR) and ODUflex(GFP) signal
types, this field indicates the nominal bit rate of ODUflex
expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-
precision floating-point number (referring to [RFC4506] and
[IEEE]). For other signal types, this field is not necessary and
MUST be set to 0.
Tolerance: 16 bits
In case of ODUflex(CBR) signal type, this field indicates the bit
rate tolerance (part per million, ppm) of the ODUflex(CBR)
encoded as an unsigned integer. The ODUflex(CBR) bit rate
tolerance is always specified as 100 ppm per Table 7-2 of [G709-
2012], so it MUST be set to 100ppm. For other signal types, this
field is not necessary and MUST be set to 0.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
5.1. Usage of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters
In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in
the ODUflex Traffic Parameters MUST be used to determine the actual
bandwidth of ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., Bit_Rate * (1 +/- Tolerance)).
Therefore the total number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link
can be reserved correctly. Here:
N = Ceiling of
ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)
In this formula, the ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate is the bit rate of
the ODUflex(CBR) on the line side, i.e., the client signal bit rate
after applying the 239/238 factor (according to Clause 7.3, Table 7-2
of [G709-2012]) and the transcoding factor T (if needed) on the CBR
client. According to clauses 17.7.3, 17.7.4 and 17.7.5 of [G709-
2012]:
ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate = CBR client bit rate * (239/238) / T
The ODTUk.ts (Optical channel Data Tributary Unit k with ts tributary
slots) nominal bit rate is the nominal bit rate of the tributary slot
of ODUk, as shown in Table 1 (referring to Table 7-7 of [G709-2012]).
Table 1 - Actual TS bit rate of ODUk (in Kbps)
ODUk.ts Minimum Nominal Maximum
-----------------------------------------------------------
ODU2.ts 1,249,384.632 1,249,409.620 1,249,434.608
ODU3.ts 1,254,678.635 1,254,703.729 1,254,728.823
ODU4.ts 1,301,683.217 1,301,709.251 1,301,735.285
Note that:
Minimum bit rate of ODUTk.ts =
ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)
Maximum bit rate of ODTUk.ts =
ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 + HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)
Where: HO OPUk bit rate tolerance = 20ppm
Therefore, a node receiving a PATH message containing ODUflex(CBR)
nominal bit rate and tolerance can allocate precise number of
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
tributary slots and set up the cross-connection for the ODUflex
service.
Note that for different ODUk, the bit rates of the tributary slots
are different, and so the total number of tributary slots to be
reserved for the ODUflex(CBR) MAY not be the same on different HO
ODUk links.
An example is given below to illustrate the usage of ODUflex(CBR)
Traffic Parameters.
As shown in Figure 1, assume there is an ODUflex(CBR) service
requesting a bandwidth of (2.5Gbps, +/-100ppm) from node A to node C.
In other words, the ODUflex Traffic Parameters indicate that Signal
Type is 20 (ODUflex(CBR)), Bit_Rate is 2.5Gbps and Tolerance is
100ppm.
+-----+ +---------+ +-----+
| +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ |
| +=============+\| ODU |/+=============+ |
| +=============+/| flex+-+=============+ |
| +-------------+ | |\+=============+ |
| +-------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ |
| | | | | |
| | ....... | | ....... | |
| A +-------------+ B +-------------+ C |
+-----+ HO ODU4 +---------+ HO ODU2 +-----+
=========: TS occupied by ODUflex
---------: free TS
Figure 1 - Example of ODUflex(CBR) Traffic Parameters
- On the HO ODU4 link between node A and B:
The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex(CBR) equals 2.5Gbps * (1 +
100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU4
equals 1,301,683.217 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots
N1 to be reserved on this link is:
N1 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,301,683.217 Kbps) = 2
- On the HO ODU2 link between node B and C:
The maximum bit rate of the ODUflex equals 2.5Gbps * (1 +
100ppm), and the minimum bit rate of the tributary slot of ODU2
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
equals 1,249,384.632 Kbps, so the total number of tributary slots
N2 to be reserved on this link is:
N2 = ceiling (2.5Gbps * (1 + 100ppm) / 1,249,384.632 Kbps) = 3
5.2. Usage of ODUflex(GFP) Traffic Parameters
[G709-2012] recommends that the ODUflex(GFP) will fill an integral
number of tributary slots of the smallest HO ODUk path over which the
ODUflex(GFP) may be carried, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Recommended ODUflex(GFP) bit rates and tolerance
ODU type | Nominal bit-rate | Tolerance
--------------------------------+------------------+-----------
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 1<=n<=8 | n * ODU2.ts | +/-100 ppm
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 9<=n<=32 | n * ODU3.ts | +/-100 ppm
ODUflex(GFP) of n TS, 33<=n<=80 | n * ODU4.ts | +/-100 ppm
According to this table, the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST
equal to one of the 80 values listed below:
1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts;
9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts;
33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts.
In this way, the number of required tributary slots for the
ODUflex(GFP) (i.e., the value of "n" in Table 2) can be deduced from
the Bit_Rate field.
5.3. Notification on Errors of OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters
There is no Adspec associated with the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC. Either
the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the Default General
Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used,
see [RFC2210].
For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC
object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents
of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path
message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a
"Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself, and
the interfaces on which the LSP will be established, can support the
requested Signal Type, NVC, Tolerance and Bit_Rate values. If the
requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service
unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).
In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node
MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad
Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).
Further, if the Signal Type is not ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3, and the NVC
field is not 0, the node MUST generate a PathErr message with a
"Traffic Control Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).
6. Generalized Label
This section defines the format of the OTN-TDM Generalized Label.
6.1. OTN-TDM Switching Type Generalized Label
The following is the Generalized Label format for that MUST be used
with the OTN-TDM Switching Type:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Bit Map ...... ~
~ ...... | Padding Bits ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The OTN-TDM Generalized Label is used to indicate how the LO ODUj
signal is multiplexed into the HO ODUk link. Note that the LO OUDj
signal type is indicated by Traffic Parameters, while the type of HO
ODUk link is identified by the selected interface carried in the
IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object.
TPN (12 bits): indicates the TPN for the assigned Tributary Slot(s).
- In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU1/ODU2/ODU3, only the
lower 6 bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of
TPN MUST be set to 0.
- In case of LO ODUj multiplexed into HO ODU4, only the lower 7
bits of TPN field are significant and the other bits of TPN
MUST be set to 0.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
- In case of ODUj mapped into OTUk (j=k), the TPN is not needed
and this field MUST be set to 0.
Per [G709-2012], The TPN is used to allow for correct demultiplexing
in the data plane. When an LO ODUj is multiplexed into HO ODUk
occupying one or more TSs, a new TPN value is configured at the two
ends of the HO ODUk link and is put into the related MSI byte(s) in
the OPUk overhead at the (traffic) ingress end of the link, so that
the other end of the link can learn which TS(s) is/are used by the LO
ODUj in the data plane.
According to [G709-2012], the TPN field MUST be set as according to
the following tables:
Table 3 - TPN Assignment Rules (2.5Gbps TS granularity)
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
|HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| ODU2 | ODU1 |1~4 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| | ODU1 |1~16|Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU1 |
| ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
Table 4 - TPN Assignment Rules (1.25Gbps TS granularity)
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
|HO ODUk|LO ODUj|TPN | TPN Assignment Rules |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| ODU1 | ODU0 |1~2 |Fixed, = TS# occupied by ODU0 |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| | ODU1 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs |
| ODU2 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| |ODU0 & |1~8 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and |
| |ODUflex| |ODUflexes' TPNs |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| | ODU1 |1~16|Flexible, != other existing LO ODU1s' TPNs |
| +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| | ODU2 |1~4 |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU2s' TPNs |
| ODU3 +-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| |ODU0 & | |Flexible, != other existing LO ODU0s and |
| |ODU2e &|1~32|ODU2es and ODUflexes' TPNs |
| |ODUflex| | |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
| ODU4 |Any ODU|1~80|Flexible, != ANY other existing LO ODUs' TPNs |
+-------+-------+----+----------------------------------------------+
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
Note that in the case of "Flexible", the value of TPN MAY not be
corresponding to the TS number as per [G709-2012].
Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map field,
i.e., the total number of TS in the HO ODUk link. The valid values
for this field are 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 80.
In case of an ODUk mapped into OTUk, there is no need to indicate
which tributary slots will be used, so the length field MUST be set
to 0.
Bit Map (variable): indicates which tributary slots in HO ODUk that
the LO ODUj will be multiplexed into. The sequence of the Bit Map is
consistent with the sequence of the tributary slots in HO ODUk. Each
bit in the bit map represents the corresponding tributary slot in HO
ODUk with a value of 1 or 0 indicating whether the tributary slot
will be used by LO ODUj or not.
Padding bits are added after the Bit Map to make the whole label a
multiple of four bytes if necessary. Padding bits MUST be set to 0
and MUST be ignored.
6.2. Procedures
The ingress node MUST generate a Path message and specify the OTN-TDM
Switching Type and corresponding G-PID in the Generalized Label
Request object, which MUST be processed as defined in [RFC3473].
The ingress node of an LSP MAY include label ERO (Explicit Route
Object) to indicate the label in each hops along the path. Note that
the TPN in the label ERO subobject MAY not be assigned by the ingress
node. In this case, the node MUST assign a valid TPN value and then
put this value into TPN field of the label object when receiving a
Path message.
In order to create bidirectional LSP, the ingress node and upstream
node MUST generate an Upstream Label on the out outgoing interface to
indicate the reserved TSs of ODUk and the assigned TPN value in the
upstream direction. This Upstream Label is sent to the downstream
node via Path massage for upstream resource reservation.
The ingress node or upstream node MAY generate Label Set to indicate
which labels on the outgoing interface in the downstream direction
are acceptable. The downstream node will restrict its choice of
labels, i.e., TS resource and TPN value, to one which is in the Label
Set.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
The ingress node or upstream node MAY also generate Suggested Label
to indicate the preference of TS resource and TPN value on the
outgoing interface in the downstream direction. The downstream node
is not REQUIRED to use the Suggested Label and MAY use another label
based on local decision and send it to the upstream node, as
described in [RFC3473].
When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL
object with an OTN-TDM label, it MUST firstly identify which ODU
signal type is multiplexed or mapped into which ODU signal type
accordingly to the Traffic Parameters and the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object
in the received message.
- In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST retrieve the
reserved tributary slots in the ODUk by its downstream neighbor
node according to the position of the bits that are set to 1 in
the Bit Map field. The node determines the TS type (according to
the total TS number of the ODUk, or pre-configured TS type), so
that the node can multiplex the ODUj into the ODUk based on the TS
type. The node MUST also retrieve the TPN value assigned by its
downstream neighbor node from the label, and fill the TPN into the
related MSI byte(s) in the OPUk overhead in the data plane, so
that the downstream neighbor node can check whether the TPN
received from the data plane is consistent with the ExMSI and
determine whether there is any mismatch defect. Note that the
Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate the TS
type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps)
since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. In
some cases when there is no Link Management Protocol (LMP) or
routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG,
the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the
label format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the
length filed will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is
2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively.
- In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, the size of Bit Map field MUST be
0 and no additional procedure is needed.
When a downstream node or egress node receives a Path message
containing Generalized Label Request object for setting up an ODUj
LSP from its upstream neighbor node, the node MUST generate an OTN-
TDM label according to the signal type of the requested LSP and the
free resources (i.e., free tributary slots of ODUk) that will be
reserved for the LSP, and send the label to its upstream neighbor
node.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
- In case of ODUj to ODUk multiplexing, the node MUST firstly
determine the size of the Bit Map field according to the signal
type and the tributary slot type of ODUk, and then set the bits to
1 in the Bit Map field corresponding to the reserved tributary
slots. The node MUST also assign a valid TPN, which MUST NOT
collide with other TPN value used by existing LO ODU connections
in the selected HO ODU link, and configure the Expected MSI
(ExMSI) using this TPN. Then, the assigned TPN MUST be filled into
the label.
- In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit
Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST NOT be included, so
Length field MUST be set to 0 as well.
6.2.1. Notification on Label Error
When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an LABEL
object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify if the label is
acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node MUST generate a
ResvErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value"
indication. Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message MAY include
an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception of label
semantics, downstream node processing a received ResvErr messages and
of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document.
Similarly, when a downstream node receives a Path message containing
an UPSTREAM_LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify
if the label is acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the node
MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable
label value" indication. Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message
MAY include an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception of
label semantics, downstream node processing received PathErr messages
and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified by this document.
A received label SHALL be considered unacceptable when one of the
following cases occurs:
- The received label doesn't conform to local policy;
- Invalid value in the length field;
- The selected link only supports 2.5Gbps TS granularity while the
Length field in the label along with ODUk signal type indicates
the 1.25Gbps TS granularity;
- The label includes an invalid TPN value that breaks the TPN
assignment rules;
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
- The indicated resources (i.e., the number of "1" in the Bit Map
field) are inconsistent with the Traffic Parameters.
6.3. Supporting Virtual Concatenation and Multiplication
Per [RFC6344], the Virtual Concatenation Groups (VCGs) can be created
using Co-Signaled style or Multiple LSPs style.
In case of Co-Signaled style, the explicit ordered list of all labels
MUST reflect the order of VCG members, which is similar to [RFC4328].
In case of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (NVC > 1), the
first label MUST indicate the components of the first virtually
concatenated signal; the second label MUST indicate the components of
the second virtually concatenated signal; and so on. In case of
multiplication of multiplexed virtually concatenated signals (MT >
1), the first label MUST indicate the components of the first
multiplexed virtually concatenated signal; the second label MUST
indicate components of the second multiplexed virtually concatenated
signal; and so on.
Support for Virtual Concatenation of ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 signal
types, as defined by [RFC6344], is not modified by this document.
Virtual Concatenation of other signal types is not supported by
[G709-2012].
Multiplier (MT) usage is as defined in [RFC6344] and [RFC4328].
6.4. Examples
The following examples are given in order to illustrate the label
format described in Section 6.1 of this document.
(1) ODUk into OTUk mapping:
In such conditions, the downstream node along an LSP returns a label
indicating that the ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4) is directly mapped into the
corresponding OTUk. The following example label indicates an ODU1
mapped into OTU1.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN = 0 | Reserved | Length = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(2) ODUj into ODUk multiplexing:
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 16]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
In such conditions, this label indicates that an ODUj is multiplexed
into several tributary slots of OPUk and then mapped into OTUk. Some
instances are shown as follow:
- ODU0 into ODU2 Multiplexing:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN = 2 | Reserved | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padding Bits (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This above label indicates an ODU0 multiplexed into the second
tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the
type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 2.
- ODU1 into ODU2 Multiplexing with 1.25Gbps TS granularity:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0| Padding Bits (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This above label indicates an ODU1 multiplexed into the 2nd and the
4th tributary slot of ODU2, wherein there are 8 TS in ODU2 (i.e., the
type of the tributary slot is 1.25Gbps), and the TPN value is 1.
- ODU2 into ODU3 Multiplexing with 2.5Gbps TS granularity:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN = 1 | Reserved | Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padding Bits (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This above label indicates an ODU2 multiplexed into the 2nd, 3rd, 5th
and 7th tributary slot of ODU3, wherein there are 16 TS in ODU3
(i.e., the type of the tributary slot is 2.5Gbps), and the TPN value
is 1.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 17]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
7. Supporting Hitless Adjustment of ODUflex (GFP)
[G7044] describes the procedure of ODUflex (GFP) hitless resizing
using Link Connection Resize (LCR) and Bandwidth Resize (BWR)
protocols in OTN data plane.
For the control plane, signaling messages are REQUIRED to initiate
the adjustment procedure. Section 2.5 and Section 4.6.4 of [RFC3209]
describe how the Shared Explicit (SE) style is used in Traffic
Engineering (TE) network for bandwidth increasing and decreasing,
which is still applicable for triggering the ODUflex (GFP) adjustment
procedure in data plane.
Note that the SE style MUST be used at the beginning when creating a
resizable ODUflex connection (Signal Type = 21). Otherwise an error
with Error Code "Conflicting reservation style" MUST be generated
when performing bandwidth adjustment.
- Bandwidth increasing
For the ingress node, in order to increase the bandwidth of an
ODUflex (GFP) connection, a Path message with SE style (keeping
Tunnel ID unchanged and assigning a new LSP ID) MUST be sent
along the path.
The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful
completion of LCR protocols on every hop after Resv message is
processed. On success of BWR, the ingress node SHOULD send a
PathTear message to delete the old control state (i.e., the
control state of the ODUflex (GFP) before resizing) on the
control plane.
A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares
the old Traffic Parameters (stored locally) with the new one
carried in the Path message, to determine the number of TS to be
added. After choosing and reserving new free TS, the downstream
node MUST send back a Resv message carrying both the old and new
LABEL Objects in the SE flow descriptor.
An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow
descriptor MUST determine which TS are added and trigger the LCR
protocol between itself and its downstream neighbor node.
- Bandwidth decreasing
For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style SHOULD also be
sent for ODUflex bandwidth decreasing.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 18]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
The ingress node will trigger the BWR protocol when successful
completion of LCR handshake on every hop after Resv message is
processed. On success of BWR, the second step of LCR, i.e., link
connection decrease procedure will be started on every hop of the
connection. After completion of bandwidth decreasing, the ingress
node SHOULD send a ResvErr message to tear down the old control
state.
A downstream node receiving Path message with SE style compares
the old Traffic Parameters with the new one carried in the Path
message to determine the number of TS to be decreased. After
choosing TSs to be decreased, the downstream node MUST send back
a Resv message carrying both the old and new LABEL Objects in the
SE flow descriptor.
An upstream neighbor receiving Resv message with SE flow
descriptor MUST determine which TS are decreased and trigger the
first step of LCR protocol (i.e., LCR handshake) between itself
and its downstream neighbor node.
8. Control Plane Backward Compatibility Considerations
As described in [OTN-FWK], since the [RFC4328] has been deployed in
the network for the nodes that support the 2001 revision of the G.709
specification, control plane backward compatibility SHOULD be taken
into consideration. More specifically:
o Nodes supporting this document SHOULD support [OTN-OSPF].
o Nodes supporting this document MAY support [RFC4328] signaling.
o A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and
this document) is not REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both
procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator.
o Ingress nodes that support both sets of procedures MAY select
which set of procedures to follow based on routing information or
local policy.
o Per [RFC3473], nodes that do not support this document will
generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Switching
Type" indication.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 19]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
9. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to the
existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Referring to [RFC3473] and
[RFC4328], further details of the specific security measures are
provided. Additionally, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security
vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control
plane.
10. IANA Considerations
Three RSVP C-Types are defined for OTN-TDM Traffic Parameters and
OTN-TDM Generalized Label in this document:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
- OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects:
o OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (see
Section 5)
o OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (see Section 5)
- OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object:
o OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: Class = 16, C-Type = 2 (see
Section 6.1)
IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters). "Generalized
PIDs (G-PID)" subregistry is included in this registry, which will be
extended and updated by this document as below:
- Generalized PID (G-PID):
Name: G-PID
Format: 16-bit number
Values:
[0..31, 36..46] defined in [RFC3471]
[32] defined in [RFC3471] and updated by Section 4
[33..35] defined in [RFC3471] and updated by [RFC4328]
[47, 49..52] defined in [RFC4328] and updated by Section 4
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 20]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
[48, 53..58] defined in [RFC4328]
[59..63] defined in Section 4 of this document
Allocation Policy (as defined in [RFC4328]):
[0..31743] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
[31744..32767] Assigned temporarily for Experimental Usage
[32768..65535] Not assigned. Before any assignments can be
made in this range, there MUST be a Standards
Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations
that covers the range being assigned.
"Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" will be defined by this
document as below:
Value Signal Type Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Not significant [RFC4328]
1 ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps) [RFC4328]
2 ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps) [RFC4328]
3 ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps) [RFC4328]
4 ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps) [this document]
5 Reserved (for future use) [RFC4328]
6 Och at 2.5 Gbps [RFC4328]
7 OCh at 10 Gbps [RFC4328]
8 OCh at 40 Gbps [RFC4328]
9 OCh at 100 Gbps [this document]
10 ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) [this document]
11 ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 [this document]
and GE LAN)
12~19 Reserved (for future use) [this document]
20 ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) [this document]
21 ODUflex(GFP-F), resizable [this document]
(i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
22 ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable [this document]
(i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
23~255 Reserved (for future use) [this document]
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 21]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006.
[RFC6344] G. Bernstein et al, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT)
and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC6344, August 2011.
11.2. Informative References
[OTN-FWK] Fatai Zhang et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress: draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework, November 2012.
[OTN-INFO] S. Belotti et al, "Information model for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks (OTN)", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-otn-g709-info-model, January 2013.
[OTN-OSPF] D. Ceccarelli et al, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 22]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
OTN Networks", Work in Progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
ospf-g709v3, January 2013.
[G709-2012] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709/Y.1331 Recommendation, February 2012.
[G7044] ITU-T, "Hitless adjustment of ODUflex", G.7044/Y.1347,
October 2011.
[RFC4506] M. Eisler, Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", RFC 4506, May 2006.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC5920, July 2010.
[IEEE] "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, August 1985.
12. Contributors
Jonathan Sadler, Tellabs
Email: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com
Kam LAM, Alcatel-Lucent
Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com
Xiaobing Zi, Huawei Technologies
Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com
Francesco Fondelli, Ericsson
Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com
Lyndon Ong, Ciena
Email: lyong@ciena.com
Biao Lu, infinera
Email: blu@infinera.com
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 23]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
13. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Guoying Zhang
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094272
Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn
Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6863033
Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Khuzema Pithewan
Infinera Corporation
169, Java Drive
Sunnyvale, CA-94089, USA
Email: kpithewan@infinera.com
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 24]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
Yi Lin
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972914
Email: yi.lin@huawei.com
Yunbin Xu
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094134
Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn
Pietro Grandi
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6864930
Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Rajan Rao
Infinera Corporation
169, Java Drive
Sunnyvale, CA-94089
USA
Email: rrao@infinera.com
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 25]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
John E Drake
Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Igor Bryskin
Adva Optical
EMail: IBryskin@advaoptical.com
14. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard for
their useful comments to the document.
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 26]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 27]
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt February 2013
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Zhang Expires August 2013 [Page 28]
