draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-02.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed. Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard R. Casellas, Ed. Intended status: Standard R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: January 2014 CTTC Expires: November 2015 CTTC
July 12, 2013 June 1, 2015
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-01.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective,
wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology....................................................3 1. Terminology....................................................3
2. Requirements Language..........................................3 2. Requirements Language..........................................3
3. Introduction...................................................3 3. Introduction...................................................3
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6 4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request.................................6
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................6 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................6
4.2. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................8 4.2. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................8
4.2.1. Link Identifier Entry...............................10 4.2.1. Link Identifier Field...............................10
4.2.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12 4.2.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12
4.3. Signal processing capability restrictions................12 4.3. Signal processing capability restrictions................13
4.3.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........13 4.3.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14
4.3.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14 4.3.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................14 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15
5.1. Error Indicator..........................................14 5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................15 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17
6. Manageability Considerations..................................15 6. Manageability Considerations..................................17
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................15 6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................18
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............16 6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............18
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................16 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................16 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components16 6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components19
6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................17 6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................19
7. Security Considerations.......................................17 7. Security Considerations.......................................19
8. IANA Considerations...........................................17 8. IANA Considerations...........................................19
9. Acknowledgments...............................................17 9. Acknowledgments...............................................22
10. References...................................................17 10. References...................................................22
10.1. Informative References..................................17 10.1. Informative References..................................22
11. Contributors.................................................19 11. Contributors.................................................24
Authors' Addresses...............................................20 Authors' Addresses...............................................25
Intellectual Property Statement..................................20 Intellectual Property Statement..................................25
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................21 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................26
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], and
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
System (OSS), or may be an independent network server. System (OSS), or may be an independent network server.
The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol
used between a PCC and a PCE, and may also be used between used between a PCC and a PCE, and may also be used between
cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol
requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements
for PCEP are deferred to separate documents. for PCEP are deferred to separate documents.
This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of
Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in [PCE- Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in
RWA]. [RFC7449].
WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is
performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal. performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
In this document, it is assumed that wavelength converters require In this document, it is assumed that wavelength converters require
electrical signal regeneration. Consequently, WSONs can be electrical signal regeneration. Consequently, WSONs can be
transparent (A transparent optical network is made up of optical transparent (A transparent optical network is made up of optical
devices that can switch but not convert from one wavelength to devices that can switch but not convert from one wavelength to
another, all within the optical domain) or translucent (3R another, all within the optical domain) or translucent (3R
regenerators are sparsely placed in the network). regenerators are sparsely placed in the network).
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in [RWA- signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in [RWA-
Encode] and [WSON-OSPF]. In order to improve the signal quality and Encode] and [WSON-OSPF]. In order to improve the signal quality and
limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing
are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical
signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) must be processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of
compatible between the sender and the receiver of the optical path optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender
across all optical elements. and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. See [WSON-Imp] and [RSVP-Imp] for more of RWA path computation. See [WSON-Imp] and [RSVP-Imp] for more
information on optical impairments and GMPLS. information on optical impairments and GMPLS.
4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request 4. Encoding of a RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture, referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture from via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture from
which the requirements have been specified in [PCE-RWA] and the PCEP which the requirements have been specified in [RFC7449] and the PCEP
extensions that are going to be specified in this document based on extensions that are going to be specified in this document based on
this architecture. this architecture.
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| | | | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+ | PCE | +-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Figure 2 Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object 4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
means: means:
(a) By means of Explicit Label Control, in the sense that one (or (a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates
two) allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject. which label to use for each interface/node along the path. in the
(b) By means of a Label Set, containing one or more allocated Labels, sense that the allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route
provided by the PCE. 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 Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment. signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation. request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.
The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is
as follows: as follows:
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
the ENDPOINTS object. the ENDPOINTS object.
The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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 |M| | Flags | O |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction TLV | | Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV |
. . . .
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object Figure 3 WA Object
o Flags (32 bits) o Flags (32 bits)
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object Figure 3 WA Object
o Flags (32 bits) o Flags (32 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be set The following new flags SHOULD be set
. M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of . M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of
wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates wavelength assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates
that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is, that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is,
the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means
of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of a of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of a
computed LSP. Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs computed LSP. Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs
not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label
set objects in the corresponding response, to allow distributed set objects in the corresponding response, to allow distributed
WA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set object as WA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as
described in Section 2.2 of [Gen-Encode] in the response. described in Section 2.6 of [Gen-Encode] in the response. See
Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
Label Set Field in a PCRep message.
. O (Order - 3 bits): O bit is used to indicate the wavelength . O (Order - - 3 bits): O bit is used to indicate the wavelength
assignment constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment constraint in regard to the order of wavelength
assignment to be returned by the PCE. This case is only applied assignment to be returned by the PCE. This case is only applied
when M bit is set to "explicit." The following indicators when M bit is set to ''explicit.'' The following indicators
should be defined: should be defined:
000 - Reserved 000 - - Reserved
001 - Random Assignment 001 - - Random Assignment
010 - First Fit (FF) in descending Order 010 - - First Fit (FF) in descending Order
011 - First Fit (FF) in ascending Order 011 - - First Fit (FF) in ascending Order
100 - Last Fit (LF) in ascending Order 100 - - Last Fit (LF) in ascending Order
101 - Last Fit (LF) in descending Order 101 - - Last Fit (LF) in descending Order
110 - Unspecified 110 - - Unspecified
111 - Reserved 111 - Reserved
4.2. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 4.2. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
(PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be (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 used. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a
constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser
transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note
that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have
mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved
wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the TED wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the TED
either via IGP or NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of the 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 transmitter, the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints to
the request. the request.
The TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD. This TLV MAY appear The format of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is as
more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions. follows:
The TLV data is defined as follows:
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::= <Wavelength Restriction Constraint> ::=
<Action> <Count> <Reserved> <Action> <Count> <Reserved>
(<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)... (<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)...
Where Where
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>] <Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
<Link Identifier> ::= See Section 4.2.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field.
<Unnumbered IF ID> | <IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> 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
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 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 | | Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers | | Link Identifiers |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field | | Wavelength Restriction Field |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding
o Action: 8 bits o Action: 8 bits
. 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers . 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers
are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
that is part of the set. that is part of the set.
. 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a . 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a
range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first range of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive). second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are All links with numeric values between the bounds are
considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive). second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are All links with numeric values between the bounds are
considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in either
position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
portion of the range. Note that the Action field can be set to portion of the range. Note that the Action field can be set to
0 when unnumbered link identifier is used. 0 when unnumbered link identifier is used.
Note that "interfaces" such as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB Note that "interfaces" such as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB
[RFC2863] are assumed to be bidirectional. [RFC2863] are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count: The number of of the link identifiers (8 bits) o Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits)
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to all 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 links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a set
of wavelengths. of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type. type.
o Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits) o Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits)
o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field. See the following section for Link Identifier encoding. field. See Section 4.2.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
4.2.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.
4.2.1. Link Identifier Entry 4.2.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier field can be an IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered The link identifier field can be an IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered
interface ID. interface ID.
<Link Identifier> ::= <Link Identifier> ::=
<IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID> <IPV4 Address> | <IPV6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>
The encoding of each case is as follows: The encoding of each case is as follows:
IPv4 prefix Entry IPv4 prefix Entry
0 1 2 3 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 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 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | | Type = 1 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 15
The encoding of each case is as follows: The encoding of each case is as follows:
IPv4 prefix Entry IPv4 prefix Entry
0 1 2 3 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 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 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | | Type = 1 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute | | IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV
0 1 2 3 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 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 | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | Type = 2 | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute | | IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Sub-TLV Unnumbered Interface ID Sub-TLV
0 1 2 3 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 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 = 4 | Reserved | Attribute | | Type = 3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID | | TE Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID | | Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.2.2. Wavelength Restriction Field 4.2.2. Wavelength Restriction Field
The Wavelength Restriction Field of the wavelength restriction TLV The Wavelength Restriction Field of the wavelength restriction TLV
is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in [GEN-Encode] section is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in [GEN-Encode] section
2.2, as shown below, with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC label, 2.6, as shown below, with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC label,
defined in [RFC6205]. See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, defined in [RFC6205]. See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S,
Identifier and n, as well as [GEN-Encode] for the details of each Identifier and n, as well as [GEN-Encode] for the details of each
action. action.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Action| Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S | Identifier | n | |Grid | C.S | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action | | 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 [GEN-Encode] for details on
additional field discussion for each action.
4.3. Signal processing capability restrictions 4.3. Signal processing capability restrictions
Path computation for WSON include the check of signal processing Path computation for WSON include the check of signal processing
capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP, however capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP, however
this is not a MUST. Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate this is not a MUST. Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate
additional restrictions for those signal compatibility, either on additional restrictions for those signal compatibility, either on
the endpoint or any given link. the endpoint or any given link.
The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described
in [RWA-Info]: in [RFC7446]:
. Optical Interface Class List . Optical Interface Class List
. Bit rate . Bit Rate
. Client signal . Client Signal
The Bit-rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the The Bit Rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object. BANDWIDTH object.
The client signal information can be expressed using the REQ-ADAP- In order to support the Optical Interface Class information and the
CAP object from the [PCEP-Layer]. Client Signal information new TLVs are introduced as endpoint-
restriction in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint:
In order to support the Optical Interface Class information a new . Client Signal TLV
TLV is introduced as endpoint-restriction in the END-POINTS type
Generalized endpoint:
. Optical Interface Class List TLV . Optical Interface Class List TLV
The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows: The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows:
<endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST> <endpoint-restrictions> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST>
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> <Wavelength Restriction Constraint>
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>...] [<signal-compatibility-restriction>...]
Where Where
signal-compatibility-restriction ::= signal-compatibility-restriction ::=
<Optical Interface Class List> <Client Signal>
<Optical Interface Class List> The encoding for the Optical Interface Class List is described in
Section 4.1 of [RWA-Encode].
The encoding for Optical Interface Class List is described in The encoding for the Client Signal Information is described in
Section 5.2 of [RWA-Encode]. Section 4.2 of [RWA-Encode].
4.3.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object 4.3.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object
The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal
processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or
multi-domain path computation. multi-domain path computation.
In order to support the exclusion a new XRO sub-object is defined: In order to support the exclusion a new XRO sub-object is defined:
the signal processing exclusion: the signal processing exclusion:
skipping to change at page 14, line 18 skipping to change at page 14, line 44
The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition
[WSON-Sign]. [WSON-Sign].
4.3.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion 4.3.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion
Similar to the XRO sub-object the PCC/PCE should be able to include 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 particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation. handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
This is supported by adding the sub-object "processing" defined for This is supported by adding the sub-object ''processing'' defined for
ERO in [WSON-Sign] to the PCEP IRO object. ERO in [WSON-Sign] to the PCEP IRO object.
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply
The ERO is used to encode the path of a TE LSP through the network. This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for
wavelength allocation 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. in the
sense that 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o Reserved: Reserved for future use (31 bits)
o M (Mode): 1 bit
. 0 - - indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.
. 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 4.2.1. for Link
Identifier encoding.
o Assigned Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the assigned
wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.2.2 for encoding
details.
This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RSVP-RO]. The type
value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA.
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 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 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 the path computation was successful. The preferred way to convey the
allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC)
[RFC4003]. [RFC4003].
In order to encode wavelength assignment, the Wavelength Assignment In order to encode wavelength assignment, the Wavelength Assignment
(WA) Object needs to be employed to be able to specify wavelength (WA) Object needs to be employed to be able to specify wavelength
assignment. Since each segment of the computed optical path is assignment. Since each segment of the computed optical path is
associated with wavelength assignment, the WA Object should be associated with wavelength assignment, the WA Object should be
aligned with the ERO object. aligned with the ERO object.
Encoding details will be provided further revisions and will be Encoding details will be provided further revisions and will be
aligned as much as possible with [WSON-Sign] and [LSPA-ERO] aligned as much as possible with [WSON-Sign] and [LSPA-ERO]
5.1. Error Indicator 5.1. Error Indicator
skipping to change at page 17, line 21 skipping to change at page 19, line 26
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within PCEP [PCEP]. However the additional information distributed within PCEP [PCEP]. However the additional information distributed
in order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of in order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of
network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private.
Consideration should be given to securing this information. Consideration should be given to securing this information.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
A future revision of this document will present requests to IANA for IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
codepoint allocation. allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
sections.
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 Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Sections 4.2, 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]
Constraint
8.3. 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]
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
As described in Section 4.3, 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 Optical Interface [This.I-D]
Class List
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV
As described in Section 4.3, 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 Client Signal Field [This.I-D]
8.6.
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
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft. comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
10. References 10. References
skipping to change at page 18, line 28 skipping to change at page 23, line 19
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006. September 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
[PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", draft- 10.2. Normative References
[PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., ''PCEP extensions for GMPLS'', draft-
ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress. ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[LSPA-ERO] Margaria, et al., "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-margaria- [RSVP-RO] Margaria, et al., ''LSP Attribute in ERO'', draft-margaria-
ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero, work in progress. ccamp-lsp-attribute-ero, work in progress.
[PCEP-Layer] Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel, "Extensions to the [PCEP-Layer] Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel, ''Extensions to the
Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", draft- Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering'', draft-
ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, work in progress. ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, work in progress.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku, [RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011. Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, March 2011.
[PCE-RWA] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and [RFC7449] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing- Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February, 2015.
wavelength, work in progress.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- [RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
January, 2011. January, 2011.
[WSON-Sign] Bernstein et al,"Signaling Extensions for Wavelength [WSON-Sign] Bernstein et al,''Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson- Switched Optical Networks'', draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-
signaling, work in progress. signaling, work in progress.
[WSON-OSPF] Lee and Bernstein,"OSPF Enhancement for Signal and [WSON-OSPF] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein,''OSPF Enhancement for Signal
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks",draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal- Optical Networks'',draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-
compatibility-ospf, work in progress. compatibility-ospf, work in progress.
[RWA-Info] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment [RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors), ''Routing and Wavelength
Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Networks",draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info, work in progress. Optical Networks'', RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RWA-Encode]Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment [RWA-Encode]Bernstein and Lee, ''Routing and Wavelength Assignment
Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical
Networks",draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, work in Networks'',draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, work in
progress. progress.
[GEN-Encode] Bernstein and Lee, "General Network Element Constraint [GEN-Encode] Bernstein and Lee, ''General Network Element Constraint
Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks",draft-ietf-ccamp- Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks'',draft-ietf-ccamp-
general-constraint-encode, work in progress. general-constraint-encode, work in progress.
[WSON-Imp] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework [WSON-Imp] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) with Impairments", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson- (WSON) with Impairments", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-
impairments, work in progress. impairments, work in progress.
[RSVP-Imp] agraz, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of Impairment Aware [RSVP-Imp] agraz, ''RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of Impairment Aware
Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks WSONs)", draft-agraz-ccamp-wson- Optical Networks WSONs)'', draft-agraz-ccamp-wson-
impairment-rsvp, work in progress. impairment-rsvp, work in progress.
[OSPF-Imp] Bellagamba, et al., "OSPF Extensions for Wavelength [OSPF-Imp] Bellagamba, et al., ''OSPF Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments",draft- Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments'',draft-
eb-ccamp-ospf-wson-impairments, work in progress. eb-ccamp-ospf-wson-impairments, work in progress.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor Young Lee, Editor
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075, USA Plano, TX 75075, USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
108 lines changed or deleted 294 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/