Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: June 13, 2019 CTTC
December 13, 2018
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10
Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective,
wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
constraint to optical path computation.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology....................................................3
2. Requirements Language..........................................3
3. Introduction...................................................3
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................6
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................8
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................8
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................10
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions................13
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15
5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17
6. Manageability Considerations..................................17
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17
6.2. Information and Data Models..............................18
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................18
7. Security Considerations.......................................18
8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................19
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................19
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......19
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................20
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........20
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................20
8.7. New No-Path Reasons......................................21
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................21
9. Acknowledgments...............................................22
10. References...................................................22
10.1. Normative References....................................22
10.2. Informative References..................................22
11. Contributors.................................................24
Authors' Addresses...............................................25
1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
[RFC5440].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Introduction
[RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include
path computation requests and path computation replies as well as
notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the
context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering.
A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request
and may be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within a
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself,
can be located anywhere within the network, and may be within an
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) or
Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network
server.
This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of
Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in
[RFC6163] and [RFC7449].
WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is
performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
WSONs can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical
network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not
convert from one wavelength to another, all within the optical
domain. On the other hand, translucent networks include 3R
regenerators that are sparsely placed. The main function of the 3R
regenerators is to convert one optical wavelength to another. In
this document, only wavelength converters that require electrical
signal regeneration are considered.
A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R
regenerators (typically with electronic regenerator and optional
wavelength conversion). Each transparent segment or path in WSON is
referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple
fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for
each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the
wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the
relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical
paths).
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |I1 | | | | | | I2| |
| |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X)
<-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><---------------------->
Transparent Segment Transparent Segment
<------------------------------------------------->
LSC LSP
Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate
on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, both signals
would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on
different links along its route from origin to destination. It is,
however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due
to their relatively high cost, while the number of WDM channels that
can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be
composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion,
nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full
wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an
additional routing constraint to be considered in all optical path
computation.
For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may
be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent
segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP
at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding
Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would
be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be PSC, TDM, etc.
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for
generic property such as label, label-set and label assignment
noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions
and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per
[RFC7579].
The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in
[RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing
are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical
signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of
optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender
and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation.
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are going to be
specified in this document are based on this architecture.
+----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |
+-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+
Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
means:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is
as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
Where:
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<ENDPOINTS>
<WA>
[other optional objects...]
If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
the ENDPOINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with
respect to the other following objects are irrelevant.
The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Selection TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV |
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
o Reserved (16 bits)
o Flags (16 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be set
. M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of
wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates
that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is,
the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means
of Explicit Label Control for each hop of a computed LSP.
Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs not be explicit
(i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label set objects in
the corresponding response, to allow distributed WA. In such
case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as described in
Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See Section 5 of this
document for the encoding discussion of a Label Set Field in a
PCRep message.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is
set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689].
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
(PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be
used. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a
constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser
transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note
that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have
mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved
wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the TED
either via IGP or NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of the
transmitter, the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints to
the request.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
The format of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is as
follows:
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::=
<Action> <Count> <Reserved>
(<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)...
Where
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field.
The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD, recommended
value is TBD. This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to
specify multiple restrictions.
The TLV data is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding
o Action: 8 bits
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
. 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers
are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
that is part of the set.
. 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a
range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are
considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either
position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
portion of the range.
Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits)
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all
links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type.
o Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits)
o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329]
or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].
<Link Identifier> ::=
<IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
The encoding of each case is as follows:
IPv4 prefix sub-TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Sub-TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field
The Wavelength Restriction Field of the wavelength restriction TLV
is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in Section 2.6 in
[RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC label, defined in
[RFC6205]. See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier
and n, as well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action| Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action:
0 - Inclusive List
1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range
4 - Bitmap Set
Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific
meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit
integer.
Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional
field discussion for each action.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions
Path computation for WSON includes the check of signal processing
capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP. Moreover,
a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions for those
signal compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link.
The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described
in [RFC7446]:
. Optical Interface Class List
. Bit Rate
. Client Signal
The Bit Rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the
BANDWIDTH object.
In order to support the Optical Interface Class information and the
Client Signal information new TLVs are introduced as endpoint-
restriction in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint:
. Client Signal TLV
. Optical Interface Class List TLV
The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows:
<endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST>
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>...]
Where
signal-compatibility-restriction ::=
<Optical Interface Class List> <Client Signal>
The encoding for the Optical Interface Class List is described in
Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
The encoding for the Client Signal Information is described in
Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object
The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal
processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or
multi-domain path computation.
In order to support the exclusion a new XRO sub-object is defined:
the signal processing exclusion:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = X | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-sub objects |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Signaling Processing XRO Sub-Object
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Type, Length and
Attribute.
The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be
interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node).
The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition
[RFC7689].
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion
Similar to the XRO sub-object the PCC/PCE should be able to include
particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
This is supported by adding the sub-object "processing" defined for
ERO in [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply
This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for
wavelength allocation request as discussed in Section 4. Recall that
wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
means:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the
path.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.
The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD.
The TLV data is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o Type (16 bits): The type of the TLV.
o Length (15 bits): The length of the TLV including the Type and
Length fields.
o M (Mode): 1 bit
- 0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
- 1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type.
o Link Identifier (variable): Identifies the interface to which
assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. for Link
Identifier encoding.
o Allocated Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated
wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for encoding
details.
This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. The type
value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA.
5.1. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type
(TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows:
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an Error-value(Error-
value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The
corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request
and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB)
and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing
the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be
cancelled at the PCC.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
. Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was
found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.
6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations:
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
. The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
. The support for WSON RWA.
. A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender,
request rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
6.2. Information and Data Models
Extensions to a MIB or a YANG model should be defined, so as to
cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this document.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise
WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
6.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
this document, this document does not introduce any new security
issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information
distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
sections.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
8.1. New PCEP Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the
following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Object Class Name Object Reference
Value Type
---------------------------------------------------------
TDB WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D]
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Selection [This.I-D]
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D]
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
Constraint
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the
allocation of wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request by
the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D]
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Optical Interface [This.I-D]
Class List
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.7. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Section 5.2., a new bit flag are defined to be
carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the
NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
computation request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
TLV Flag Field" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
tlv).
Bit Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------------
TBD No RWA constraints met [This.I-D]
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for
WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference
Type
---------------------------------------------------------------
TDB WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory
2: RWA computation {This.I-D]
Not supported
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute
in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471. January 2003.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE)
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., Y. Rekhter, Ed., " OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009.[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April
2009.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
January, 2011.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors),"Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element
Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC
7579, June 2015.
[RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.
[RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS:
Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC
8253, October 2017.
[PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress.
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
11. Contributors
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA December 2018
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor
Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075, USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas, Editor
CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
Spain
Phone: (34) 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria
Nokia Siemens Networks
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich, 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28043
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA, USA
Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Lee & Casellas Expires June 2019 [Page 25]