CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie - Editor (KPNQwest)
Internet Draft
Expiration Date: October 2002 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)
April 2002
GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.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-04.txt April, 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 four new classes of interfaces and switching:
Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex (TDM),
Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (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 five 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. Some extra non-standard
capabilities are defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]. Other documents
could further 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 October 2002 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Profile (P) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Annex 1 defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding.
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 [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]).
- 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 October 2002 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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 is done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET
and SDH signaling.
Appendix 1 adds one more signal type (optional). Refer to [GMPLS-
SDH-SONET-EXT] 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 sometimes negotiate (see
[GMPLS-SDH-SONET-EXT]) 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 simultaneously more than one flag
chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any
supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document
scope. 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 knows 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 October 2002 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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
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 must 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 [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] 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. The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
concatenation being requested in the RCC field.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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 in this document, i.e. VT1.5
SPE, VT2 SPE, VT3 SPE, VT6 SPE, STS-1 SPE, STS-3c SPE, VC-11,
VC-12, VC-2, VC-3 or VC-4.
This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no
virtual concatenation is requested.
Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] 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
belong 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 October 2002 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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 [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of transparency
types beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707.
Profile (P)
This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that
must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring
capabilities.
No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD
be set to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when
received.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
In the future TLV based extensions may be created.
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
content 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.
2.3. CR-LDP Details
For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The content 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 for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: 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
within an ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e.
a VC-x, a VT-x SPE or an STS-x SPE. An SDH/SONET label will
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
identify the exact position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular
VC-x, VT-x SPE or STS-x SPE signal in a multiplexing structure.
SDH and SONET labels are carried in the Generalized Label per
[GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].
Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear
logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear
after any possible interleaving.
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.
In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.
In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the
Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied
by the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we
mean the one having the lowest label when compared as integer
values, i.e. the time-slot occupied by 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 the
first time-slot occupied by 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 G.707/T1.105 recommendations.
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 (i.e. virtually concatenated).
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 time-
slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the
second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the
second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in G.707
sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. Note that
the higher order numbering scheme defined in G.707 sections 7.3.1
to 7.3.6 is not used here.
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 or ignored field.
When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context
it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when
received.
When a hierarchy of SDH/SONET LSPs is used, an LSP with a given
bandwidth can be used to carry 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, i.e. the
label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the higher
order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that
label is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e. the label is
"S,U,K,0,0".
For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs. In
that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3
LSP for the lower order LSPs 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.
In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing VC-
12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent
the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used,
i.e. per layer network signaling.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows:
1. S=1->N is the index of a particular AUG-1/STS-3 inside an
STM-N/STS-N multiplex. S is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0)
and SONET STS-N (N>1) and must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 and
STS-1.
2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular VC-3/STS-1 SPE within an
AUG-1/STS-3. U is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and SONET
STS-N (N>1) and must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 and STS-1.
3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is
only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s and must
be 0 and ignored in all other cases.
4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular TUG-2/VT Group within a
TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. L must be 0 and ignored in all other
cases.
5. M is the index of a particular VC-1/VT-1.5, VT-2 or VT-3 SPE
within a TUG-2/VT Group. M=1->2 indicates a specific VT-3 SPE
inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be used
for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 with SDH. M=3->5
indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 SPE inside the corresponding
TUG-2/VT Group. M=6->9 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE
inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group.
Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the
SDH/SONET traffic parameters, i.e. a label by itself does not
allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is
context sensitive).
The S encoding is summarized in the following table:
S SDH SONET
------------------------------------------------
0 other other
1 1st AUG-1 1st STS-3
2 2nd AUG-1 2nd STS-3
3 3rd AUG-1 3rd STS-3
4 4rd AUG-1 4rd STS-3
: : :
N Nth AUG-1 Nth STS-3
The U encoding is summarized in the following table:
U SDH AUG-1 SONET STS-3
-------------------------------------------------
0 other other
1 1st VC-3 1st STS-1 SPE
2 2nd VC-3 2nd STS-1 SPE
3 3rd VC-3 3rd STS-1 SPE
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
The K encoding is summarized in the following table:
K SDH VC-4
---------------
0 other
1 1st TUG-3
2 2nd TUG-3
3 3rd TUG-3
The L encoding is summarized in the following table:
L SDH TUG-3 SDH VC-3 SONET STS-1 SPE
-------------------------------------------------
0 other other other
1 1st TUG-2 1st TUG-2 1st VTG
2 2nd TUG-2 2nd TUG-2 2nd VTG
3 3rd TUG-2 3rd TUG-2 3rd VTG
4 4th TUG-2 4th TUG-2 4th VTG
5 5th TUG-2 5th TUG-2 5th VTG
6 6th TUG-2 6th TUG-2 6th VTG
7 7th TUG-2 7th TUG-2 7th VTG
The M encoding is summarized in the following table:
M SDH TUG-2 SONET VTG
-------------------------------------------------
0 other other
1 - 1st VT-3 SPE
2 - 2nd VT-3 SPE
3 1st VC-12 1st VT-2 SPE
4 2nd VC-12 2nd VT-2 SPE
5 3rd VC-12 3rd VT-2 SPE
6 1st VC-11 1st VT-1.5 SPE
7 2nd VC-11 2nd VT-1.5 SPE
8 3rd VC-11 3rd VT-1.5 SPE
9 4th VC-11 4th VT-1.5 SPE
Examples of labels:
Example 1: the label for the VC-4/STS-3c in the Sth AUG-1/STS-3
is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within
the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.
Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth
AUG-1/STS-3 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
Example 4: the label for the VC-2/VT-6 in the Lth-1 TUG-2/VT Group
in the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 is: S>0,
U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
Example 5: the label for the 3rd VC-11/VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 TUG-
2/VT Group within the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth AUG-
1/STS-3 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.
Example 6: the label for the VC-4-4c/STS-12c which uses the 9th
AUG-1/STS-3 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
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.
In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to
zero according to the field coding rules. For instance, when
requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0,
M=0. When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is
S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9.
When a transparent STM-N/STS-3*N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) is
requested, the label is not applicable and is set to zero.
Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for the label for the extended set
of transparency types beyond the transparency types as defined in
T1.105/G.707.
4. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from many people, and
particularly on the CCAMP mailing list where outstanding
discussions took place.
5. Security Considerations
This draft introduces no new security considerations to either
[GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP]. GMPLS security is described in
section 11 of [GMPLS-SIG], in [CR-LDP] and in [RSVP-TE].
6. References
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt,
November 2001.
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt,
November 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt,
November 2001.
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions to
control non-standard SONET and SDH features",
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-
extensions-02.txt, April 2002.
[GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet
Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt,
March 2002.
[CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
RFC3212, January, 2002.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 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
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
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
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
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7053
Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it
Gert Grammel
Alcatel
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
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
Lucent
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 Editor & Primary Point of Contact
KPNQwest
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@kpnqwest.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Dimitrios Pendarakis
Tellium
Phone: +1 (732) 923-4254
Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com
Mike Raftelis
White Rock Networks
18111 Preston Road Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75252
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
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
Eve Varma
Lucent
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
Phone: +1 732 949 8559
Email: evarma@lucent.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
Maarten Vissers
Lucent
Botterstraat 45
Postbus 18
1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands
Email: mvissers@lucent.com
Yangguang Xu
Lucent
21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Email: xuyg@lucent.com
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
Appendix 1 - 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 branch instead of the TU-3
branch.
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 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 via the AU-3 branch at some other places in
the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in
any branch is suitable.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 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.
4. 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.
5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
STM-4 Elementary Signal.
6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0,
NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an
STM-256 Elementary Signal.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt April, 2001
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following
table:
Signal ST RCC NCC NVC MT T
--------------------------------------------------------
VC-4 6 0 0 0 1 0
VC-4-7v 6 0 0 7 1 0
VC-4-16c 6 1 16 0 1 0
STM-16 MS transparent 10 0 0 0 1 2
STM-4 MS transparent 9 0 0 0 1 2
STM-256 MS transparent 12 0 0 0 1 2
STS-1 SPE 5 0 0 0 1 0
STS-3c SPE 6 0 0 0 1 0
STS-48c SPE 6 1 16 0 1 0
STS-1-3v SPE 5 0 0 3 1 0
STS-3c-9v SPE 6 0 0 9 1 0
STS-12 Section transparent 9 0 0 0 1 1
3 x STS-768c SPE 6 1 256 0 3 0
5 x VC-4-13v 6 0 0 13 5 0
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft October 2002 21
Datatracker
Report a datatracker bug
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04
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 |