CCAMP Working Group Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
Internet Draft Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
Expiration Date: November 2001 Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
Lou Berger (Movaz)
Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
Angela Chiu (Celion)
John Drake (Calient)
Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Juergen Heiles(Siemens)
Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)
Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
Fong Liaw (Zaffire)
Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
Mike Raftelis (White Rock)
Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
Vishal Sharma (Jasmine)
George Swallow (Cisco)
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
Eve Varma (Lucent)
Maarten Vissers (Lucent)
Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor
May 2001
GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may
also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
E. Mannie Editor 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document is a companion to the Generalized MPLS signaling
documents, [GMPLS-SIG], [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. It defines
the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using
GMPLS signaling.
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS extends MPLS from supporting packet (Packet
Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching to include
support of three new classes of interfaces and switching: Time-
Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and Fiber-Switch
(FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS
signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and
switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-
TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four
classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in
[GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to
SONET/SDH. Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are
carried in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific
objects.
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. SDH and SONET Traffic Parameters
This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
The protocol specific formats, for the SDH/SONET-specific RSVP-TE
objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3
respectively.
These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities
for SONET (ANSI T1.105) and SDH (G.707) such as concatenation and
transparency. Other documents could enhance this set of
capabilities in the future. For instance, extensions to G.707 such
as SDH over PDH, or sub-STM-0 interfaces could be defined.
The traffic parameters defined hereafter MUST be used when
SONET/SDH is specified in the LSP Encoding Type field of a
Generalized Label Request [GMPLS-SIG].
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters
The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH is organized 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 | Resv | CCT | NCC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NVC | Multiplier (MT) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transparency (T) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Signal Type (ST): 8 bits
This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that
comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied
successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal
being actually requested for the LSP. Each transform is
optional and must be ignored if zero. Transforms must be
applied strictly in the following order:
-First, contiguous concatenation (by using the CCT and NCC
fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal,
resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal.
-Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can
be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary
Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained
from the previous phase. This allows requesting the virtual
concatenation of a contiguously concatenated signal, for
instance the virtual concatenation of STS-3c's, or any STS-
Xc's.
-Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when
requesting a frame as signal rather than an SPE or VC based
signal (by using the Transparency field).
-Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or
on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first
phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from
the second phase, or on these signals combined with some
transparency.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Permitted Signal Type values for SDH are:
Value Type
----- ----
1 VC-11
2 VC-12
3 VC-2
4 TUG-2
5 VC-3
6 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" (see comment hereafter)
7 TUG-3
8 VC-4
9 AUG-1
10 AUG-4
11 AUG-16
12 AUG-64
13 AUG-256
14 STM-1 (only when requesting transparency)
15 STM-4 (only when requesting transparency)
16 STM-16 (only when requesting transparency)
17 STM-64 (only when requesting transparency)
18 STM-256 (only when requesting transparency)
According to the G.707 standard a VC-3 in the TU-3/TUG-3/VC-
4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in TUG-
2's, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, a
VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. In
some cases, it could be useful to indicate that the destination
LSR needs to receive a VC-3 via the AU-3 branch in order to be
able to demultiplex it into TUG-2's. This is achieved by using
the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type. This information
can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to switch the
incoming VC-3 into the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to
the destination LSR. The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type
does not imply that the VC-3 must be switched in the AU-3 at
some other places. The VC-3 signal type indicates that a VC-3
in any branch is suitable.
Administrative Unit Group-N's (AUG-N's) are either a homogeneous
collection of AU-3s or AU-4s. When used as a signal type this
means that all the VC-3s or VC-4s in the AU-3s or AU-4s that
comprise the AUG-N are switched together as one unique signal. In
addition any contiguous concatenation relationships between the
VC-3s or VC-4s in the AUG-N are preserved and are allowed to
change over the life of an AUG-N. It is this flexibility in the
concatenation relationships between the component virtual
containers that differentiates this signal from a set of VC-3s or
VC-4s. In addition whether the AUG-N is structured with AU-3s or
AU-4s does not need to be specified and is allowed to change over
time. The same reasoning applies to TUG-2 and TUG-3 signal types.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Permitted Signal Type values for SONET are:
Value Type
----- ----
1 VT1.5
2 VT2
3 VT3
4 VT6
5 VTG
6 STS-1 SPE
7 STS Group-3
8 STS Group-12
9 STS Group-48
10 STS Group-192
11 STS Group-768
12 STS-1 (only when requesting transparency)
13 STS-3 (only when requesting transparency)
14 STS-12 (only when requesting transparency)
15 STS-48 (only when requesting transparency)
16 STS-192 (only when requesting transparency)
17 STS-768 (only when requesting transparency)
STS Group-N is a collection of STS-1 SPE signals whose contiguous
concatenation relationship within the group need not be defined
and is permitted to change during the life of the STS-Group-N. It
is this flexibility in the concatenation relationships between the
component STS-1 SPE's that differentiates this signal from a set
of STS-1 SPE's. For example an STS Group-48 could at one time
consist of four STS-12c signals and at another point in times of
three STS-12c signals and four STS-3c signals. The same reasoning
applies to the VTG signal type.
Reserved: 5 bits
Reserved bits should be set to zero when sent and must be ignored
when received.
Contiguous Concatenation Type (CCT): 3 bits
This field indicates the type of SONET/SDH contiguous
concatenation to apply on the Elementary Signal. It is set to
zero to indicate that no contiguous concatenation is requested
(default value). The values are defined in the following table:
Bits Contiguous Concatenation Type
----- ----------------------------------
000 No contiguous concatenation requested
001 Standard contiguous concatenation
010 Arbitrary contiguous concatenation
others Vendor specific concatenation types
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH
SPE's/VC's that are requested to be contiguously concatenated,
as specified in the CCT field.
This field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
requested (CCT = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
generated. A CCT value different from 0 must imply a number of
components greater than 1.
Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
requested to be virtually concatenated. These signals can be
either identical Elementary Signal's SPE's/VC's, or identical
contiguously concatenated signals. In this last case, it allows
to request the virtual concatenation of contiguously
concatenated signals, for instance the virtual concatenation of
several STS-3c SPE's, or any STS-Xc SPE's (to obtain an STS-Xc-
Yv SPE).
This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no
virtual concatenation is requested.
Multiplier (MT): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These
signals can be either identical Elementary Signal's, or
identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical
virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals
belongs thus to the same LSP.
The distinction between the components of multiple virtually
concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that
are specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must
describe the first component (set of individual signals
belonging to the first virtual concatenated signal), the second
set must describe the second component (set of individual
signals belonging to the second virtual concatenated signal)
and so on.
This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that
exactly one instance of a signal is being requested. Zero is an
invalid value.
Transparency (T): 32 bits
This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined
to provide different types of transparency. Not all
combinations are necessarily valid.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Transparency is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH
frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the
Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH
case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead
(RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer
fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are
defined as being part of the LOH.
Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using
the following Signal Types (ST's): STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM-
64, STM-256, STS-1, STS-3, STS-12, STS-48, STS-192, and STS-
768. At least one transparency type must be specified when
requesting such a signal type.
Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these
overheads must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the
LSP. An ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these
overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR
without any change. From the ingress and egress LSR's point of
views, these fields must be seen as unmodified.
Note that B1 in the SOH/RSOH is computed over the complete
previous frame, if one bit changes, B1 must be re-computed.
Note that B2 in the LOH/MSOH is also computed over the complete
previous frame, except the SOH/RSOH.
This specification neither addresses how this process is
achieved nor network deployment scenarios. The signaling is
independent of these consideration (For example, fields could
be simply unmofified or could be tunneled into unused overhead
bytes).
Several transparency types are defined below. Other
transparency types are for further study.
The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports
the requested transparency, it may also be used to setup the
transparency process to be applied in each intermediate LSR.
The different transparency flags are the following:
flag 1 (bit 1) : Section/Regenerator Section layer.
flag 2 (bit 2) : Line/Multiplex Section layer.
flag 3 (bit 3) : J0.
flag 4 (bit 4) : SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3).
flag 5 (bit 5) : LOH/MSOH DCC (D4-D12).
flag 6 (bit 6) : LOH/MSOH Extended DCC (D13-D156).
flag 7 (bit 7) : K1/K2.
flag 8 (bit 8) : E1.
flag 9 (bit 9) : F1.
flag 10 (bit 10): E2.
Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved,
they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
when received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the
corresponding transparency is requested.
Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the
entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator
Section layer transparency all other flags must be ignored.
Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the
LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
pointers cannot be adjusted. Line/Multiplex Section layer
transparency can be combined only with any of the following
transparency types: J0, SOH/RSOH DCC (D1-D3), E1, F1; and all
other transparency flags must be ignored.
Note that the extended LOH/MSOH DCC (D13-D156) is only
applicable to (defined for) STS-768/STM-256.
2.2. RSVP-TE Details
For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is
used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The
contents of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The
objects have the following class and type:
For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707:
SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (TBA)
SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (TBA)
There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH 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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
2.3. CR-LDP Details
For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The contents of the TLV is
defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the
following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The type field indicates either SONET or SDH:
For SONET ANSI T1.105 : 0xTBA.
For SDH ITU-T G.707 : 0xTBA.
3. SDH and SONET Labels
SDH and SONET each define a multiplexing structure. These two
structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STM-N or an
STS-N; and whose leaves are the signals (time-slots) that can be
transported and switched, i.e. a VC-x or a VT-x. An SDH/SONET
label will identify the exact position of a particular signal in a
multiplexing structure. SDH and SONET labels are carried in the
Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].
These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to
create unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET
multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH
multiplexing structure, the same format of label is used for SDH
and SONET. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a label does not identify
the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicitly
determined by the link on which the label is used. However, in
some cases the encoding specified hereafter can make the direct
distinction between SDH and SONET.
In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.
In case of any type of contiguous concatenation (e.g. standard or
arbitrary concatenation), only one label appears in the Label
field. That label is the lowest signal of the contiguously
concatenated signal. By lowest signal we mean the one having the
lowest label when compared as integer values, i.e. the first
component signal of the concatenated signal encountered when
descending the tree.
In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all
labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates a
component of the virtually concatenated signal. The order of the
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
labels must reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate (not
the physical order of time-slots). The above representation limits
virtual concatenation to remain within a single (component) link.
In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform),
the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the
Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually
concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the first
virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates
the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
representation limits multiplication to remain within a single
(component) link.
The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET TDM-LSR link is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S | U | K | L | M |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
For SDH, this is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in
G.707 section 7.3, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. For SONET, the U
and K fields are not significant and must be set to zero. Only the
S, L and M fields are significant for SONET and have a similar
meaning as for SDH.
Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the
parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as
numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the
multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to
indicate a non-significant field.
When a field is not significant in a particular context it MUST be
set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received.
When hierarchical SDH/SONET LSPs are used, an LSP with a given
bandwidth can be used to tunnel lower order LSPs. The higher
order SDH/SONET LSP behaves as a virtual link with a given
bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding
Adjacency. A lower order SDH/SONET LSP can be established through
that higher order LSP. Since a label is local to a (virtual) link,
the highest part of that label is non-significant and is set to
zero.
For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be advertised as a forwarding
adjacency. In that case all labels allocated between the two ends
of that LSP will have S, U and K set to zero, i.e., non-
significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the signal
allocated in that VC-3.
1. S is the index of a particular STM-1/STS-1 signal. S=1->N
indicates a specific STM-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
multiplex. For example, S=1 indicates the first STM-1/STS-1, and
S=N indicates the last STM-1/STS-1 of this multiplex.
2. U is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET.
It indicates a specific VC inside a given STM-1. U=1 indicates a
single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a specific VC-3 inside the
given STM-1.
3. K is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET.
It indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. K=1 indicates that the
VC-4 is not further subdivided and contains a C-4. K=2->4
indicates a specific TUG-3 inside the VC-4. K is not significant
when the STM-1 is divided into VC-3s (easy to read and test).
4. L indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE.
It is not significant for an unstructured VC-4. L=1 indicates
that the TUG-3/VC-3/STS-1 SPE is not further subdivided and
contains a VC-3/C-3 in SDH or the equivalent in SONET. L=2->8
indicates a specific TUG-2/VT Group inside the corresponding
higher order signal.
5. M indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group. It is not
significant for an unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE.
M=1 indicates that the TUG-2/VT Group is not further subdivided
and contains a VC-2/VT-6. M=2->3 indicates a specific VT-3
inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be used
for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 with SDH. M=4->6
indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 inside the corresponding TUG-
2/VT Group. M=7->10 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 inside the
corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that M=0 denotes an
unstructured VC-4, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (easy for debugging).
The M encoding is summarized in the following table:
M SDH SONET
----------------------------------------------------------
0 unstructured VC-4/VC-3 unstructured STS-1 SPE
1 VC-2 VT-6
2 - 1st VT-3
3 - 2nd VT-3
4 1st VC-12 1st VT-2
5 2nd VC-12 2nd VT-2
6 3rd VC-12 3rd VT-2
7 1st VC-11 1st VT-1.5
8 2nd VC-11 2nd VT-1.5
9 3rd VC-11 3rd VT-1.5
10 4th VC-11 4th VT-1.5
In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
lowest label of the contiguously concatenated signal as explained
before. The higher part of the label indicates where the signal
starts and the lowest part is not significant. For instance, when
requesting an STS-48c the label is S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Examples of labels:
Example 1: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0
Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth STM-1.
Example 2: S>0, U=1, K>1, L=1, M=0
Denotes the unstructured VC-3 of the Kth-1 TUG-3 of the Sth STM-1.
Example 3: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0
Denotes the unstructured STM-1/STS-1 SPE of the Sth STM-1/STS-1.
Example 4: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=1
Denotes the VT-6 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.
Example 5: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=9
Denotes the 3rd VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.
4. Examples of SONET and SDH signals
As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency
transforms can be applied.
1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of CCT with value 0,
NVC with value 0 (no concatenation), MT with value 1 and T with
value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of CCT with value
0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 7 components), MT
with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of CCT with
value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4
Elementary Signal.
5. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16 Elementary Signal.
6. An STM-64 signal with RSOH and MSOH DCC's transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 1 and T with flag 4 and 5 to an STM-64 Elementary
Signal.
7. An STM-4c signal (i.e. VC-4-4C with the transport overhead)
with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the
application of CCT with value 1, NCC with value 4, NVC with value
0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-4
Elementary Signal.
8. An STM-256c signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 1, NCC with value 256,
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
STM-256 Elementary Signal.
9. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to
an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
10. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC
with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
Elementary Signal.
11. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT with
value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 48,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1
SPE Elementary Signal.
12. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
Elementary Signal.
13. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
with value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value
3, NVC with value 9 (virtual concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with
value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
14. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal.
15. An STS-192 signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 1 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-192 Elementary
Signal.
16. An STS-48c signal with LOH DCC and E2 transparency is formed
by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 48, NVC with
value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 10 to an STS-48
Elementary Signal.
17. An STS-768c signal with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with Type 1, NCC with value 768,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 5 and 7 to an
STS-768 Elementary Signal.
18. 4 x STS-12 signals with K1/K2 and LOH DCC transparency is
formed by the application of CCT with value 0, NVC with value 0,
MT with value 4 and T with flags 5 and 7 to an STS-12 Elementary
Signal.
19. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
with value 1, NCC with value 768, NVC with value 0, MT with value
3, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
20. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
CCT with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with
value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.
21. 2 x STS-4a-5v SPE signal is formed by the application of CCT
with value 2 (for arbitrary concatenation), NCC with value 4, NVC
with value 5, MT with value 2 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
Elementary Signal.
5. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from many people.
6. Security Considerations
This draft introduce no new security considerations to either
[GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP].
7. References
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-02.txt,
April, 2001.
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-02.txt,
February 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-02.txt,
April, 2001.
[GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet
Draft, draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt, March,
2001.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
8. Authors' Addresses
Peter Ashwood-Smith
Nortel Networks Corp.
P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 4534
Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com
Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972-3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +1 703 847-1801
Email: lberger@movaz.com
Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: +1 408 366 4713
Email: greg@ciena.com
Angela Chiu
Celion Networks
One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
Phone: +1 732 747 9987
Email: angela.chiu@celion.com
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net
Yanhe Fan
Axiowave Networks, Inc.
100 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
Email: yfan@axiowave.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Michele Fontana
Alcatel TND-Vimercate
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7053
Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it
Gert Grammel
Alcatel TND-Vimercate
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7060
Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it
Juergen Heiles
Siemens AG
Hofmannstr. 51
D-81379 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64
Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de
Suresh Katukam
Cisco Systems
1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA
e-mail: skatukam@cisco.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Jonathan P. Lang
Calient Networks
25 Castilian
Goleta, CA 93117
Email: jplang@calient.net
Zhi-Wei Lin
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
Phone: +1 732 949 5141
Email: zwlin@lucent.com
Ben Mack-Crane
Tellabs
Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
Eric Mannie
EBONE
Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
Phone: +32 2 658 56 52
Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
Fax: +32 2 658 51 18
Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Senior R&D Engineer - Optical Networking
Alcatel IPO-NSG
Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Mike Raftelis
White Rock Networks
18111 Preston Road Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75252
Phone: +1 (972)588-3728
Fax: +1 (972)588-3701
Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com
Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4237
Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: braja@tellium.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4264
Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma
Jasmine Networks, Inc.
3061 Zanker Road, Suite B
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 895 5030
Fax: +1 408 895 5050
Email: vsharma@jasminenetworks.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt May, 2001
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Voice: +1 978 244 8143
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Z. Bo Tang
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4231
Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: btang@tellium.com
Eve Varma
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
Phone: +1 732 949 8559
Email: evarma@lucent.com
Maarten Vissers
Botterstraat 45
Postbus 18
1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands
Email: mvissers@lucent.com
Yangguang Xu
21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Email: xuyg@lucent.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft November 2001 18
Datatracker
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 3946.
| Document | Document type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 3946.
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Select version | |||
| Compare versions | |||
| Author | |||
| RFC stream |
|
||
| Other formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion |