Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standard R. Casellas
Expires: August 2011 CTTC
February 18, 2011
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext-00.txt
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
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Lee Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
(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.
Abstract
This draft provides the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
Lightpath 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 light path computation.
Conventions used in this document
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 RFC-2119 0.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements........................4
2.1. Encoding of a new RWA path request........................5
2.1.1. Wavelength Range Constraint TLV......................6
2.2. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..............................9
2.2.1. Wavelength Range Constraint TLV.....................11
2.3. Error Indicator..........................................11
2.4. NO-PATH Indicator........................................12
3. Manageability Considerations..................................12
3.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................12
3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............13
3.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................13
3.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................13
3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components13
3.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................14
4. Security Considerations.......................................14
5. IANA Considerations...........................................14
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
6. Acknowledgments...............................................14
7. References....................................................14
7.1. Normative References.....................................14
7.2. Informative References...................................15
Authors' Addresses...............................................16
Intellectual Property Statement..................................16
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................16
1. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines the PCE based Architecture and explains how a Path
Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the request of Path Computation
Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown 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 optical switching element, a Network Management System
(NMS) or Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent
network server.
The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol
used between PCC and PCE, and may also be used between cooperating
PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP.
Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred to
separate documents.
This document provides the PCEP extension for the support of Routing
and Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON)
based on the requirements specified in [PCE-RWA].
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 (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) or translucent
(regenerators are sparsely placed in the network).
A LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent
segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators (typically with
electronic regenerator and 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
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint. Note that two
optical paths within a WSON LSP need not operate on the same
wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion capabilities). Two
optical paths that share a common fiber link can not be assigned the
same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both signals
interfering 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 lightpath 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
an 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 lightpath computation.
The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655].
2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements
Figure 1 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as 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 from which the
requirements have been specified in [PCE-RWA] and the PCEP extensions
that are going to be specified in this document based on this
architecture.
+----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |
+-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+
Figure 1 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
2.1. Encoding of a new RWA path request
The current RP object is used to indicate routing related information
in a new path request per [RFC5440]. Since a new RWA path request
involves both routing and wavelength assignment, the wavelength
assignment related information in the request SHOULD be coupled in
the path request.
The Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is used to indicate wavelength
specific request in the path request.
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...]
Note: if WA object is present in the request, the WA object MUST be
encoded after the ENDPOINTS object.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |O |E|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request-ID-number |
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: WA Object Body Format
Flags (32 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be defined
o E (Explicit - 1 bit): When E 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 (ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of a computed
LSP. Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs not be
explicit (i.e., in the form of label sets). This is to allow the
distributed WA.
o O (Order - 2 bit): O bit is used to indicate the wavelength policy
constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment The
following indicators should be defined:
00 - Reserved
01 - Random Assignment
10 - First Fit (FF) in descending Order
11 - First Fit (FF) in ascending Order
Request-ID-number is same as that in the RP object.
2.1.1. Wavelength Range Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment object, 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.
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Format |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength [1] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength [N] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Format: The format of the link identifier (32 bits)
0 -- Reserved
1 -- Local Interface IPv4 Address
2 -- Local Interface IPv6 Address
4 -- Unnumbered Interface ID
The link identifier field can be an IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered
interface ID and are encoded as follows:
IPv4 prefix Subobject
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 = 1 | Length | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 prefix Subobject
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
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 = 2 | Length | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject
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 = 4 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Wavelength is defined in [Lambda-Label] 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [Lambda-Label] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n.
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
Note that each 32 bit Wavelength Field is designated to represent one
wavelength restriction on the associated link identifier.
2.2. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply
The ERO is used to encode the path of a TE LSP through the network.
The ERO is carried within a given path of a PCEP response, which is
in turn carried in a PCRep message to provide the computed TE LSP if
the path computation was successful. The preferred way to convey the
allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC)
[RFC4003].
In order to encode wavelength assignment, the Wavelength Assignment
(WA) Object needs to be employed to be able to specify wavelength
assignment. Since each segment of the computed optical path is
associated with wavelength assignment, the WA Object should be
aligned with the ERO object.
The format of a PCEP response after incorporating the WA object is as
follows:
<response>::=<RP>
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
[<path-list>]
<path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]
<path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>
where:
<attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<WA>]
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
The Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |O |E|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request-ID-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: WA Object Body Format
Flags (32 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be defined
o E (Explicit - 1 bit): When E bit is set to 1, this indicates that
the label assigned by the PCE is explicit in response to the
original request. In such case, there will be only one wavelength
assigned to the segment of the path. Otherwise, the label assigned
by the PCE is in the form of label sets (i.e., there is a set of
multiple wavelengths). In such case, the final assignment of
wavelength will be done by the nodes in a distributed fashion.
o O (Order - 2 bit): O bit is used to indicate the wavelength policy
constraint applied in choosing the wavelength for the segment of
the path. This only applied when E bit is set to 1.
01 - Random Assignment
10 - First Fit (FF) in descending Order
11 - First Fit (FF) in ascending Order
The Request-ID-Number is the same as that in the WA Object in the
Path Request message (See Section 2.1.)
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
2.2.1. Wavelength Range Constraint TLV
This TLV is used as a part of optional TLV in the Wavelength
Assignment (WA) Object defined in the previous section. The purpose
of this TLV is to specify the wavelength assignment for the segment
of the computed path. If E bit is set to 1 in the WA Object, then
there will be only one entry for the wavelength field. If E bit is
set to 0, then there will be multiple wavelength fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Format |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength [1] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength [N] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The meaning of each field has been defined in Section 2.1.1.
2.3. 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:
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
o 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.
o 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=15) and an
Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing the request.
The corresponding RWA computation MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
2.4. 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 PCRep message.
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.
Two new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
o Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was found
that meets all the constraints associated with RWA.
o Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates that no wavelength was
assigned to at least one hop of the route in the response.
3. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations:
3.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following
PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
o The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following
PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
o The support for WSON RWA.
o 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.
3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB
module
Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB] should be
defined, so as to cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this
document. A future revision of this document will list the
information that should be added to the MIB module.
3.3. 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].
3.4. 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]
3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and
Functional Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used to
advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
3.6. 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 [PCEP].
4. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within PCEP [PCEP]. However the additional information distributed in
order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of network
capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. Consideration
should be given to securing this information.
5. IANA Considerations
A future revision of this document will present requests to IANA for
codepoint allocation.
6. 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.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control",
RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009.
7.2. Informative References
[WSON-Frame] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework,
work in progress.
[PCE-RWA] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-
wavelength, work in progress.
[Lambda-Label] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels, work in progress.
8. Contributors
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (Ed.)
Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075, USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas (Ed.)
CTTC
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA February 2011
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Lee & Casellas Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 17]