draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-06.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 Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: February 2017 Expires: February 2017 CTTC
CTTC
August 15, 2016 December 16, 2016
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-05.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-06.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 February 15, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
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 Selection TLV..................................8 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................8
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................8 4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................8
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................10 4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................11
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12 4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................12
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions................13 4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions................13
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14 4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object..........14
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........14 4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........15
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply..................................15
5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16 5.1. Error Indicator..........................................16
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17
6. Manageability Considerations..................................17 6. Manageability Considerations..................................17
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17 6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............18 6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............18
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18 6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18 6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18
6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................18 6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................19
7. Security Considerations.......................................18 7. Security Considerations.......................................19
8. IANA Considerations...........................................19 8. IANA Considerations...........................................19
8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................19 8.1. New PCEP Object..........................................19
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................19 8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................20
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......19 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......20
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................20 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................20
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........20 8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........21
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................20 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................21
8.7. New No-Path Reasons......................................21 8.7. New No-Path Reasons......................................21
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................21 8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values.........................22
9. Acknowledgments...............................................22 9. Acknowledgments...............................................22
10. References...................................................22 10. References...................................................22
10.1. Informative References..................................22 10.1. Informative References..................................22
10.2. Normative References....................................23 10.2. Normative References....................................24
11. Contributors.................................................24 11. Contributors.................................................24
Authors' Addresses...............................................25 Authors' Addresses...............................................25
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 14 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
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 Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in
[RFC7449]. [RFC6163] and [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 WSONs can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical
electrical signal regeneration. Consequently, WSONs can be network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not
transparent (A transparent optical network is made up of optical convert from one wavelength to another, all within the optical
devices that can switch but not convert from one wavelength to domain. On the other hand, translucent networks include 3R
another, all within the optical domain) or translucent (3R regenerators that are sparsely placed. In this document, only
regenerators are sparsely placed in the network). wavelength converters that require electrical signal regeneration
are considered.
A LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators (typically with or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R
electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion). Each regenerators (typically with electronic regenerator and optional
transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical wavelength conversion). Each transparent segment or path in WSON is
path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links and the path referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple
should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such case, fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for
the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the
constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a LSC LSP wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the
and transparent segments (optical paths). relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical
paths).
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |I1 | | | | | | I2| | | |I1 | | | | | | I2| |
| |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| | | |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
[X LSC] [LSC LSC] [LSC LSC] [LSC X] SwCap (X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X) SwCap
<-------> <-------> <-----> <-------> <-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><----------------------> <-----------------------><---------------------->
Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment Transparent Segment
<-------------------------------------------------> <------------------------------------------------->
LSC LSP LSC LSP
Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments Figure 1 Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments
Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP need not operate on Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate
the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion capabilities). on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
Two optical paths that share a common fiber link cannot be assigned capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link
the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both signals cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, both signals
interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical
path computation process. path computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on
different links along its route from origin to destination. It is, different links along its route from origin to destination. It is,
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 31
can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be
composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion, composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion,
nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full
wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an
additional routing constraint to be considered in all lightpath additional routing constraint to be considered in all lightpath
computation. computation.
For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may
be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent
segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength MUST be assigned to the LSP applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP
at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding
Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would
be [X X] where X < LSC (PSC, TDM, ...). be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be PSC, TDM, etc.
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] for
generic property such as label, label-set and label assignment generic property such as label, label-set and label assignment
noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions noting that wavelength is a type of label. Wavelength restrictions
and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per
[RFC7579]. [RFC7579].
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 signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in
[RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and [RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
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) by the means of processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of
optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender
and the receiver of the optical path 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 [RFC6566] for more information on
information on optical impairments and GMPLS. 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 [RFC7449] 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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
<WA> <WA>
[other optional objects...] [other optional objects...]
If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
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 |M| | Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Selection TLV | | Wavelength Selection TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV | | Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV |
. . . .
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs // // Optional TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object Figure 3 WA Object
o Flags (32 bits) o Reserved (16 bits)
o Flags (16 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
WA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as WA. In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as
described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See
Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
Label Set Field in a PCRep message. Label Set Field in a PCRep message.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV 4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when M bit is
set to ''explicit'' in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689].
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 4.3. 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | | 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 = 3 | Reserved | | Type = 3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID | | TE Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID | | Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field 4.3.2. 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 [RFC7579] section is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in [RFC7579] section
2.6, 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 [RFC7579] for the details of each Identifier and n, as well as [RFC7579] 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: Action:
0 - Inclusive List 0 - Inclusive List
1 - Exclusive List 1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range 2 - Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range 3 - Exclusive Range
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 16
meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit
integer. integer.
Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field. Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional
field discussion for each action. field discussion for each action.
4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions 4.4. Signal processing capability restrictions
Path computation for WSON include the check of signal processing Path computation for WSON includes the check of signal processing
capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP, however capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP. Moreover,
this is not a MUST. Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions for those
additional restrictions for those signal compatibility, either on 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 [RFC7446]: in [RFC7446]:
. Optical Interface Class List . Optical Interface Class List
. Bit Rate . Bit Rate
. Client Signal . Client Signal
skipping to change at page 14, line 31 skipping to change at page 14, line 37
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = X | Length | Reserved | Attribute | |X| Type = X | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-sub objects | | sub-sub objects |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Signaling Processing XRO Sub-Object Figure 5 Signaling Processing XRO Sub-Object
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Type, Length and
Attribute.
The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be
interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node). interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node).
The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition
[RFC7689]. [RFC7689].
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion 4.4.2. 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 [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object. ERO in [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object.
5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply 5. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply
This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for This section provides the encoding of a RWA Path Reply for
wavelength allocation as discussed in Section 4. Recall that wavelength allocation as discussed in Section 4. Recall that
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 (ELC) where the PCE (a) By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE
skipping to change at page 15, line 27 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength allocation. signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.
The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD. The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD.
The TLV data is defined as follows: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |M| | Type | Length |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier | | Link Identifier |
| | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) | | Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding Figure 6 Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o Reserved: Reserved for future use (31 bits) o Type (16 bits): The type of the TLV.
o Length (15 bits): The length of the TLV including the Type and
Length fields.
o M (Mode): 1 bit o M (Mode): 1 bit
. 0 - - indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control. - 0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.
. 1 - - indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets. - 1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.
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 Link Identifier (variable): Identifies the interface to which o Link Identifier (variable): Identifies the interface to which
assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.2.1. for Link assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.2.1. for Link
Identifier encoding. Identifier encoding.
o Assigned Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the assigned o Allocated Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated
wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.2.2 for encoding wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.2.2 for encoding
details. details.
This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RSVP-RO]. The type carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. The type
value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA. value of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is TBD by IANA.
5.1. Error Indicator 5.1. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type
(TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object: inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows: follows:
skipping to change at page 17, line 13 skipping to change at page 17, line 27
cancelled at the PCC. cancelled at the PCC.
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed. additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag are defined to be carried in the Flags field in the One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object. NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
. Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was . Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was
found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength found that meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA. restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations: PCE must address the following considerations:
6.1. Control of Function and Policy 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
PCEP session parameters on a PCC: following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
. The ability to send a WSON RWA request. . The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
PCEP session parameters on a PCE: following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
. The support for WSON RWA. . The support for WSON RWA.
. A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender, . A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender,
request rate limiter, etc). request rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module 6.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module
Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB] should be Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [RFC7420] should be
defined, so as to cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this defined, so as to cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this
document. A future revision of this document will list the document. A future revision of this document will list the
information that should be added to the MIB module. information that should be added to the MIB module.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
6.6. Impact on Network Operation 6.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440]. section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
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 . However the additional information distributed in
in order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of network
network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. 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
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following allocations from the sub-registries as described in the following
sections. sections.
8.1. New PCEP Object 8.1. New PCEP Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the wavelength assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate the
following from ''PCEP Objects'' sub-registry following from "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects): (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Object Class Name Object Reference Object Class Name Object Reference
Value Type Value Type
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TDB WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D] TDB WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D]
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV 8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
skipping to change at page 21, line 33 skipping to change at page 22, line 12
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
tlv). tlv).
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
TBD No RWA constraints met [This.I-D] TBD No RWA constraints met [This.I-D]
8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values 8.8. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for 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 WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
Types and Values" sub-registry Error Types and Values" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object). (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference
Type Type
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
TDB WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D] TDB WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory Memory
2: RWA computation {This.I-D] 2: RWA computation {This.I-D]
skipping to change at page 22, line 23 skipping to change at page 22, line 40
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
10.1. Informative References 10.1. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
January 2003.
[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", [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control",
RFC 4003, February 2005. RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
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.
10.2. Normative References [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL, JP. Vasseur, Y. Ikejiri, and R. Zhang, "OSPF
Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
[PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., ''PCEP extensions for GMPLS'', draft- Discovery," RFC 5088, January 2008.
ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC7570] Margaria, et al., ''Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in
the Explicit Route Object (ERO)'', RFC 7570, July 2015.
[PCEP-Layer] Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel, ''Extensions to the [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL, JP. Vasseur, Y. Ikejiri, and R. Zhang, "IS-IS
Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering'', draft- Discovery," RFC 5089, January 2008.
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.
[RFC6566] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) with Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., E. Stephan, Q. Zhao, D. King, and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors), "Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and [RFC7449] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015. Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015.
10.2. Normative References
[PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", draft-
ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
[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.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al, ''Signaling Extensions for Wavelength [RFC7570] Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in
Switched Optical Networks'', RFC 7689, November 2015. the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, ''OSPF Enhancement for Signal and [RFC7689] Bernstein et al, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015.
Optical Networks'', RFC 7688, November 2015.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors), ''Routing and Wavelength [RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks'', RFC 7446, February 2015. Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.
[RFC7581] Bernstein and Lee, ''Routing and Wavelength Assignment [RFC7581] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment
Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical
Networks'', RFC7581, June 2015. Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7579] Bernstein and Lee, ''General Network Element Constraint [RFC7579] Bernstein and Lee, "General Network Element Constraint
Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks'', RFC 7579, June Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC 7579, June
2015. 2015.
[WSON-Imp] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework
for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) with Impairments", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-
impairments, work in progress.
[RSVP-Imp] agraz, ''RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of Impairment Aware
Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks WSONs)'', draft-agraz-ccamp-wson-
impairment-rsvp, work in progress.
[OSPF-Imp] Bellagamba, et al., ''OSPF Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments'',draft-
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)
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
 End of changes. 59 change blocks. 
144 lines changed or deleted 153 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/