CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor
Internet Draft
Expiration Date: April 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)
October 2001
GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-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-extensions-00.txt October, 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 GMPLS signaling extensions to
control SONET and SDH document [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] that defines the
SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS
signaling.
This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to
control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and
SDH features: arbitrary concatenation, per byte transparency and
the virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated signals.
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [GMPLS-ARCH] 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].
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] 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.
This informational document defines GMPLS signaling extensions to
control three optional non-standard (i.e. proprietary) SONET and
SDH features: arbitrary concatenation (section 2), per byte
transparency (section 3) and the virtual concatenation of
contiguously concatenated signals (section 4). Section 5 gives
examples of SONET/SDH traffic parameters (also referred to as
signal coding) when requesting a SDH/SONET LSP.
Such useful features are already implemented or under develoment
by a significant number of manufacturers. For instance, arbitrary
concatenation is already implemented in many legacy SONET and SDH
equipment that don't support any byte-oriented protocol based
control plane.
This document doesn't specify how to implement these features in
the transmission plane but how to control their usage with a GMPLS
control plane.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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. Contiguous Concatenation Extension
This section defines the following optional extension flag for the
Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) field defined in section
2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]:
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-X/STS-X resulting in a VC-4-Xa/STS-Xa
signal. 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.
A label is assigned following the same rule as for the Standard
Contiguous Concatenation (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]).
3. Transparency Extension
This section defines the following optional extension for the
Transparency field defined in section 2.1 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH].
This "extended" transparency (simply referred here as
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 unmodified, 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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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 of
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) 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.
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.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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.
4. Virtual Concatenation Extension
This section 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 of [GMPLS-SONET-SDH],
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 (i.e.
per [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] (STS-3c)-4c SPE), 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 (i.e. virtually
concatenated).
In case of virtual concatenation of a contiguously concatenated
signal, the same rule as described in section 3 of [GMPLS-SONET-
SD] for virtual concatenation applies, except that a component of
the virtually concatenated signal is now a contiguously
concatenated signal. The first label indicates the first
contiguously concatenated signal; the second label indicates the
second contiguously concatenated signal, and so on.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
5. Examples
This section 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 in [GMPLS_SONET_SDH], signal types are Elementary
Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and
transparency transforms can be applied.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
6. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from many people.
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
7. Security Considerations
This draft introduces no new security considerations to [GMPLS-
SONET-SDH].
8. References
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt,
July 2001.
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt,
July 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS
Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt,
July 2001.
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS extensions for SONET
and SDH control", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt, August 2001.
[GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet
Draft, draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt, June
2001.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
9. 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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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
Michele Fontana
Alcatel TND-Vimercate
Via Trento 30,
I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
Phone: +39 039 686-7053
Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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
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
E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft April 2001 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt October, 2001
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 April 2001 11
Datatracker
Report a datatracker bug
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00
Internet-Draft
| Document | Document type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Select version | |||
| Compare versions | |||
| Author | |||
| RFC stream |
|
||
| Other formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion |