CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor
Internet Draft
Expiration Date: December 2001 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
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 (Metanoia)
George Swallow (Cisco)
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
Eve Varma (Lucent)
Maarten Vissers (Lucent)
Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
June 2001
GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.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-01.txt June, 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 (GMPLS) 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 (ITU-T G.707) such as
concatenation and transparency. Other documents could enhance this
set of capabilities in the future. For instance, signaling for SDH
over PDH (ITU-T G.832), or sub-STM-0 (ITU-T G.708) 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 December 2001 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 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 | RCC | 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, except
MT that cannot be zero and is ignored if equal to one.
Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order:
- First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC 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 (see Appendix 4).
- 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 December 2001 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are:
Value Type
----- -----------------
1 VT1.5 SPE / VC-11
2 VT2 SPE / VC-12
3 VT3 SPE
4 VT6 SPE / VC-2
5 STS-1 SPE / VC-3
6 STS-3c SPE / VC-4
7 STS-1 / STM-0 (only when requesting transparency)
8 STS-3 / STM-1 (only when requesting transparency)
9 STS-12 / STM-4 (only when requesting transparency)
10 STS-48 / STM-16 (only when requesting transparency)
11 STS-192 / STM-64 (only when requesting transparency)
12 STS-768 / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency)
A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead
of coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs.
This was done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET
and SDH signaling.
Refer to Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for an extended set of signal
type values beyond the signal types as defined in T1.105/G.707.
Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits
This field is used to request and negotiate the optional
SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation of the Elementary Signal.
This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the
support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation.
Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice.
These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream
node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it
supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use
according to its own rules.
A downstream node receiving such flags chooses, as it likes, a
particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any supported.
A downstream node that doesnÆt support any of the concatenation
types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP request. In
particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it doesnÆt
support contiguous concatenation at all.
The upstream node can know which type of contiguous
concatenation the downstream node chosen by looking at the
position indicated by the first label and the number of
label(s) as returned by the downstream node.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous
concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero
field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is being
requested.
The following flag is defined:
Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation.
Flag 1 indicates that only the standard SONET/SDH contiguous
concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707 is supported. Note
that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for
extensions, if not used they should be set to zero when sent,
and should be ignored when received.
See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET
contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of
components is a multiple of three.
Refer to Appendix 3 for an extended set of contiguous
concatenation types beyond the contiguous concatenation types as
defined in T1.105/G.707.
Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH SPEs/VCs
that are requested to be concatenated, as specified in the RCC
field.
Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the
elementary signal to use must always be an STS-3c SPE signal
type and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This
allows also facilitating the interworking between SONET and
SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation
of three STS-1 SPEs cannot not be requested because according
to this specification, this type of signal must be coded using
the STS-3c SPE signal type.
Note 2: when requesting a transparent STM-N/STS-N signal
limited to a single contiguously concatenated VC-4-Nc/STS-Nc-
SPE, the signal type must be STM-N/STS-N, RCC with flag 1 and
NCC set to 1.
This field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
send, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value
different from 0 must imply a number of components greater than
1.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits
This field indicates the number of signals that are requested
to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same
type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for
which signal types are defined.
This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no
virtual concatenation is requested.
Refer to Appendix 4 for an extended set of signals that can be
virtually concatenated beyond the virtual concatenation as defined
in T1.105/G.707.
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 Signals, 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. The default value for this field is
zero, i.e. no transparency requested.
Transparency as defined from the point of view of this
signaling specification 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 part of the LOH.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using
the following Signal Types: STM-0, 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 LSRs point of
views, these fields must be seen as unmodified.
Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the
initiating and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between
intermediate LSRs.
The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports
the requested transparency type; 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.
Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved,
they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored
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.
Refer to Appendix 5 for an extended set of transparency types
beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707.
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:
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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.
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, with the SONET
multiplex structure being a subset of the SDH multiplex structure.
These two structures are trees whose roots are respectively an
STM-N or an STS-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be
transported via the time-slots and switched between time-slots,
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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, 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
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;
it imposes as such a restriction compared to the specification in
G.707/T1.105.
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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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 AUG-1/STS-1. S=1->N indicates
a specific AUG-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N multiplex. For
example, S=1 indicates the first AUG-1/STS-1, and S=N indicates
the last AUG-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 AUG-1. U=1 indicates a
single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a specific VC-3 inside the
given AUG-1.
3. K is only significant for SDH VC-4 and must be ignored for
SONET and SDH HOVC-3. 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 AUG-1 is divided into AU-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 or STS-1 SPE. 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 SPE. 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 SPE inside the corresponding
TUG-2/VT Group. M=7->10 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE
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).
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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.
Examples of labels:
Example 1: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0
Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth AUG-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 AUG-1.
Example 3: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0
Denotes the unstructured SPE of the Sth 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. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from many people.
5. Security Considerations
This draft introduce no new security considerations to either
[GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP].
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
6. References
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt,
May 2001.
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-03.txt,
May 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt,
May 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.
7. Authors Addresses
Stefan Ansorge
Alcatel SEL AG
Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44
Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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
Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 943 1794
Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
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 December 2001 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals
This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
Type values for the Signal Type field of section 2.1:
Value Type
----- ---------------------
13 VTG / TUG-2
14 TUG-3
15 STSG-3 / AUG-1
16 STSG-12 / AUG-4
17 STSG-48 / AUG-16
18 STSG-192 / AUG-64
19 STSG-768 / AUG-256
Administrative Unit Group-Ns (AUG-Ns) and STS Groups-3*Ns (STSG-Ms),
are logical objects that are a collection of AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-
4s/STS-3c SPEs and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs (X = 4,16,64,256).
When used as a signal type this means that all the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs,
VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs in the AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs,
AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs that comprise the AUG-
N/STSG-3*N are switched together as one unique signal.
In addition the structure of the VC-3s/STS-1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs
or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs in the AUG-N/STSG-3*N are preserved and are
allowed to change over the life of an AUG-N/STSG-3*N.
It is this flexibility in the relationships between the component VCs
or SPEs that differentiates this signal from a set of VC-3s/STS-
1_SPEs, VC-4s/STS-3c_SPEs or VC-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc_SPEs. Whether the AUG-
N/STSG-3*N is structured with AU-3s/STS-1 SPEs, AU-4s/STS-3c SPEs
and/or AU-4-Xcs/STS-3*Xc SPEs does not need to be specified and is
allowed to change over time. The same reasoning applies to TUG-2/VTG
and TUG-3 signal types.
For example an STSG-48 could at one time consist of four STS-12c
signals and at another point in time of three STS-12c signals and
four STS-3c signals.
Note that the use of TUG-X, AUG-N and STSG-M as circuit types is not
described in ANSI and ITU-T standards. The use of these signal types
in the signaling plane is conceptual.
These signal types are conceptual objects that intend to designate
a group of physical objects in the standardized data plane.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Appendix 2 - Signal Type Values Extension For VC-3
This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1:
Value Type
----- ---------------------
20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end"
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-2s,
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.
A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an
LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could
then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order
LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if
the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not
able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on
its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching
the content with its switch fabric.
In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be
terminated at the end in the AU-3 path instead of the TU-3 path.
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 an incoming VC-3 received in any branch
to the TU-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 via the AU-3 branch at some other places.
The VC-3 signal type indicates that a VC-3 in any branch is
suitable.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Appendix 3 - Contiguous Concatenation Extension
This appendix defines the following optional extension flag for
the Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field of section 2.1:
Flag 2 (bit 2): Arbitrary contiguous concatenation.
This flag allows an upstream node to signal to a downstream node
that it supports arbitrary contiguous concatenation. This type of
concatenation is not defined by ANSI or ITU-T.
Arbitrary contiguous concatenation allows for any value of X (X
less or equal N) in VC-4-Xc/STS-Xc. In addition, it allows the
arbitrary contiguous concatenated signal to start at any location
(AU-4/STS-1 timeslot) in the STM-N/STS-N signal.
This flag can be setup together with Flag 1 (Standard Contiguous
Concatenation) to give a choice to the downstream node. The
resulting type of contiguous concatenation can be different at
each hop according to the result of the negotiation.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Appendix 4 - Virtual Concatenation Extension
This appendix defines the following optional extension for the
signals that can be virtually concatenated.
In addition to the elementary signal types, which can be virtual
concatenated as indicated in section 2.1, identical contiguously
concatenated signals may be virtual concatenated. In this last
case, it allows to request the virtual concatenation of, for
instance, several VC-4-4c/STS-12c SPEs, or any VC-4-Xc/STS-Xc SPEs
to obtain a VC-4-Xc-Yv/STS-Xc-Yv SPE.
Note that the standard definition for virtual concatenation allows
each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse
paths. Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel
over the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP.
This is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component)
link. Note however, that the routing of components on different
paths is indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each
one having its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and
terminated between the same nodes and their corresponding
components can then be associated together.
In case of virtual concatenation of a contiguously concatenated
signal, the same rule as described in section 3 for virtual
concatenation applies, except that a component of the virtually
concatenated signal is now itself represented by a list of labels
because it is concatenated. The first set of labels indicates the
first contiguously concatenated signal; the second set of labels
indicates the second contiguously concatenated signal, and so on.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Appendix 5 - Transparency Extension
This appendix defines the following optional extension for the
Transparency field of section 2.1.
Transparency can be requested for a particular SOH/RSOH or
MSOH/LOH field in the STM-N/STS-N signal.
Transparency is not applied at the interfaces of the initiating
and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate
LSRs. Moreover, the transparency extensions can be implemented
effectively in very different ways, e.g. by forwarding the
corresponding overhead bytes untouched, or by tunneling the bytes.
This specification specifies neither how transparency is achieved;
nor the behavior of the signal at the egress of the transparent
network during fault conditions at the ingress of the transparent
network or within the transparent network; nor network deployment
scenarios. The signaling is independent of these considerations.
When the signaling is used between intermediate nodes it is up to
a data plane profile or specification to indicate how transparency
is effectively achieved in the data plane. When the signaling is
used at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs it
is up to the data plane specification to guarantee compliant
behavior to G.707/T1.105 under fault free and fault conditions.
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.
The different transparency extension flags are the following:
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.
Flag 11 (bit 11): B1.
Flag 12 (bit 12): B2.
Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency (refer to section 2.1)
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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 21
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
If B1 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit
error supervision functionality provided by the B1. The B1 contains
the BIP8 calculated over the previous RS/Section frame of the STM-
N/STS-N signal at the RS/Section termination source. At the
RS/Section termination sink the B1 BIP is compared with the local
BIP also calculated over the previous RS/Section frame of the STM-
N/STS-N. Any difference between the two BIP values is an indication
for a bit error that occurred between the termination source and
sink. In case of B1 transparency this functionality shall be
preserved. This means that a B1 bit error detection as described
above performed after the transparent transport (at a RS/Section
termination sink) indicates exactly the bit errors that occur
between the B1 insertion point (RS/Section termination source) and
this point. Any intended changes to the previous RS/Section frame
content due to the implementation of the transparency feature (e.g.
modifications of the RS/Section overhead, modifications of the
payload due to pointer justifications) have to be reflected in the
B1 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly.
If B2 transparency is requested, this means transparency for the bit
error supervision functionality provided by the B2. The B2 contains
the BIP24*N/BIP8*N calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the
STM-N/STS-N signal at the MS/Line termination source. At the MS/Line
termination sink the B2 BIP is compared with the local BIP also
calculated over the previous MS/Line frame of the STM-N/STS-N. Any
difference between the two BIP values is an indication for a bit
error that occurred between the termination source and sink. In case
of B2 transparency this functionality shall be preserved. This means
that a B2 bit error detection as described above performed after the
transparent transport (at a MS/Line termination sink) indicates
exactly the bit errors that occur between the B2 insertion point
(MS/Line termination source) and this point. Any intended changes to
the previous MS/Line frame content due to the implementation of the
transparency feature (e.g. modifications of the MS/Line overhead,
modifications of the payload due to pointer justifications) have to
be reflected in the B2 BIP value, it has to be adjusted accordingly.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 22
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
Annex 1 - Examples
This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their
objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic
parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or 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 RCC with value 0,
NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, 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 RCC with value
0, NCC 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 RCC with flag
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 RCC with value 0, NCC 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 DCCs transparency is formed
by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC 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 RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, 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 RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1,
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 RCC with
value 0, NCC 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 RCC with
value 0 (no contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 0, NVC with
value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
Elementary Signal.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 23
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
11. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC
with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE
Elementary Signal.
12. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
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 RCC
with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 9 (virtual
concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to
an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
14. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
formed by the application of RCC 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 RCC 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 RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, 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 RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1,
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 RCC 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 RCC
with flag 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with value
3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.
20. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
RCC 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 RCC
with flag 2 (for arbitrary contiguous 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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 24
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt June, 2001
22. A VC-4-3a signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag
2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 3, NVC with
value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary
Signal.
23. An STS-34a SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
flag 2 (arbitrary contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 34,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1
SPE Elementary Signal.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft December 2001 25
Datatracker
Report a datatracker bug
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01
Internet-Draft
| 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 |