--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt 2006-02-04 22:56:47.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-04.txt 2006-02-04 22:56:47.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ - CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor + CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie - Editor (KPNQwest) Internet Draft - Expiration Date: June 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) + 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) @@ -24,42 +24,42 @@ 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) - December 2001 + April 2002 GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt + 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-03.txt December, 2001 + 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 @@ -97,40 +97,38 @@ 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 June 2002 2 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - - A SONET signal which has an identical SDH signal SHOULD be - requested using the same traffic parameters as for the equivalent - SDH signal, and will consequently use the SDH label. +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. @@ -149,22 +147,22 @@ - 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 June 2002 3 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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 @@ -206,22 +204,22 @@ scope. A downstream node that doesnĘt 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 doesnĘt 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 June 2002 4 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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. @@ -259,22 +257,22 @@ 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 June 2002 5 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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. @@ -285,21 +283,21 @@ can be virtually concatenated beyond the virtual concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707. Multiplier (MT): 16 bits This field indicates the number of identical signals that are requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals - belongs thus to the same LSP. + 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. @@ -317,22 +315,22 @@ 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 June 2002 6 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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 @@ -364,326 +362,421 @@ 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 - contents of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The + content of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The objects have the following class and type: -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 7 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707: SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (TBA) SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (TBA) There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC. Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, see [RFC2210]. For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. 2.3. CR-LDP Details For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the - SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The contents of the TLV is + 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, - i.e. a VC-x, a VT-x SPE or an STS SPE. An SDH/SONET label will - identify the exact position of a particular signal in a - multiplexing structure. SDH and SONET labels are carried in the - Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. + 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. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 8 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - 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 is the lowest signal of the contiguously - concatenated signal. By lowest signal we mean the one having the - lowest label when compared as integer values, i.e. the first - component signal of the concatenated signal encountered when - descending the tree. + 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 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. + 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 first - virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates - the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above + 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - For SDH, this is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in - G.707 section 7.3, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. For SONET, the U - and K fields are not significant and must be set to zero. Only the - S, L and M fields are significant for SONET and have a similar - semantic as for SDH. + 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 hierarchical SDH/SONET LSPs are used, an LSP with a given - bandwidth can be used to tunnel lower order LSPs. The higher + 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". -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 9 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 + 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. - 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. + 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. - For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be advertised as a forwarding - adjacency. In that case the labels allocated between the two ends - of that LSP (i.e. for that "link") 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. +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 it follows: + The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows: - 1. S is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and SONET. It must - be ignored for STM-0. S is the index of a particular AUG-1/STS- - 1. S=1->N indicates a specific AUG-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N - multiplex. For example, S=1 indicates the first AUG-1/STS-1, and - S=N indicates the last AUG-1/STS-1 of this multiplex. + 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 is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and must be ignored - for STM-0 and SONET. It indicates a specific VC inside a given - AUG-1. U=1 indicates a single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a - specific VC-3 inside the given AUG-1. + 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 is only significant for SDH VC-4 and must be ignored in all - other cases. It indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. K=1 - indicates that the VC-4 is not further subdivided and contains a - C-4. K=2->4 indicates a specific TUG-3 inside the VC-4. K is not - significant when the AUG-1 is divided into AU-3s. + 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 indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. - It is not significant for an unstructured VC-4 (L=0). L=1 - indicates that the TUG-3/VC-3/STS-1 SPE is not further - subdivided and contains a VC-3/C-3 in SDH or the equivalent in - SONET. L=2->8 indicates a specific TUG-2/VT Group inside the - corresponding higher order signal. + 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 indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group. It is not - significant for an unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. - M=1 indicates that the TUG-2/VT Group is not further subdivided - and contains a VC-2/VT-6 SPE. M=2->3 indicates a specific VT-3 + 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=4->6 + 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=7->10 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE - inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that M=0 denotes - an unstructured VC-4, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. + TUG-2/VT Group. M=6->9 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE + inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 10 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 + 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 SONET - ---------------------------------------------------------- - 0 unstructured VC-4/VC-3 unstructured STS-1 SPE - 1 VC-2 VT-6 - 2 - 1st VT-3 - 3 - 2nd VT-3 - 4 1st VC-12 1st VT-2 - 5 2nd VC-12 2nd VT-2 - 6 3rd VC-12 3rd VT-2 - 7 1st VC-11 1st VT-1.5 - 8 2nd VC-11 2nd VT-1.5 - 9 3rd VC-11 3rd VT-1.5 - 10 4th VC-11 4th VT-1.5 + 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: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0 - Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth AUG-1. + 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: S>0, U=1, K>1, L=1, M=0 - Denotes the unstructured VC-3 of the Kth-1 TUG-3 of the Sth AUG-1. + Example 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: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0 - Denotes the unstructured SPE of the Sth STS-1. + 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: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=1 - Denotes the VT-6 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1. + Example 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. - Example 5: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=9 - Denotes the 3rd VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1. +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. For instance, when - requesting an STS-48c the label is S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. - - In case of STM-0, the values of S, U and K must be equal to zero - according to the field coding rules. For instance, when requesting - an unstructured VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=1, - M=0. + starts and the lowest part is not significant. - In case of STS-3c SPE, the value of S is the index of the first - STS-1 of the STS-3c SPE in the SONET multiplex where SPEs are - numbered from 1 to N (before any interleaving). + 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 concatenated STM-N/STS-3*N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, - 256) is requested, the label is coded as for the case of - contiguous concatenation and with S=1. I.e. S=1, U=0, K=0, L=0, - M=0. + 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. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 11 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 + 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. + 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-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-01.txt, December 2001. + extensions-02.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-ARCH] E. Mannie Editor, "GMPLS Architecture", Internet - Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt, - November 2001. + 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 -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 12 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - 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 @@ -702,23 +795,20 @@ 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 -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 13 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - 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, @@ -726,71 +816,81 @@ 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 -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 14 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - - Eric Mannie - EBONE + 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@ebone.com + 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 @@ -809,58 +909,61 @@ 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 -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 15 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 - 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 June 2002 16 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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" @@ -878,30 +981,30 @@ 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 TU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination + 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 June 2002 17 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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 @@ -919,47 +1022,46 @@ 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-4c signal (i.e. VC-4-4C with the transport overhead) - with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the - application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value - 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-4 - Elementary Signal. + 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-256c signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is - formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 1, + 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 June 2002 18 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt December, 2001 +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. @@ -969,11 +1071,31 @@ 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. -E. Mannie Editor Internet-Draft June 2002 19 + 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