draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed. Network Working Group Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed. Intended status: Standard Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: June 13, 2019 CTTC Expires: July 14, 2019 CTTC
December 13, 2018 January 14, 2019
PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10 draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11
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).
Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength Path 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 June 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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..........................................17
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17 5.2. NO-PATH Indicator........................................17
6. Manageability Considerations..................................17 6. Manageability Considerations..................................18
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................17 6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................18
6.2. Information and Data Models..............................18 6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................18 6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................18 6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components19
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components18 6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................19
6.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................18 7. Security Considerations.......................................19
7. Security Considerations.......................................18 8. IANA Considerations...........................................19
8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
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. Normative References....................................22 10.1. Normative References....................................22
10.2. Informative References..................................22 10.2. Informative References..................................23
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 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network
server. server.
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
[RFC6163] and [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.
WSONs can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical The devices used in WSONs that are able to switch signals based on
network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not signal wavelength are known as Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). WSONs
convert from one wavelength to another, all within the optical can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical network is
domain. On the other hand, translucent networks include 3R made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
regenerators that are sparsely placed. The main function of the 3R wavelength to another, all within the optical domain. On the other
regenerators is to convert one optical wavelength to another. In hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators that are sparsely
this document, only wavelength converters that require electrical placed. The main function of the 3R regenerators is to convert one
signal regeneration are considered. optical wavelength to another.
A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R
regenerators (typically with electronic regenerator and optional regenerators (Re-amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) typically
wavelength conversion). Each transparent segment or path in WSON is with electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion. Each
referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical
fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links and the path
each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such case,
wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity
relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a LSC LSP
paths). and transparent segments (optical paths).
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |I1 | | | | | | I2| | | |I1 | | | | | | I2| |
| |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| | | |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X) (X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X)
<-------> <-------> <-----> <-------> <-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><----------------------> <-----------------------><---------------------->
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 do not need to operate Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate
on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, both signals cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals
would interfere 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 path is an essential requirement in the optical path wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
computation process. 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
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 refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2. be (X X) where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be PSC, TDM, etc. 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 properties 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
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 capabilities are used. These modulation capabilities contribute not
signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and only to optical signal quality checks but also constrain the
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing selection of sender and receiver, as they should have matching
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility signal processing capabilities. This document includes signal
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal compatibility constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is,
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) by the means of the signal processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC)
optical interface class (OIC) must be compatible between the sender indicated by means of optical interface class (OIC) must be
and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements. compatible between the sender and the receiver of the optical path
across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. of RWA path computation.
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 via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are going to be specified in [RFC6163] and the PCEP extensions that are specified in
specified in this document are based on this architecture. this document are based on 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 [RFC3471] where the PCE (a) By means of Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path. allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject. The allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. 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 Wavelength
as follows: Assignment (WA) object is as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>] [<svec-list>]
<request-list> <request-list>
Where: Where:
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>] <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
<ENDPOINTS> <ENDPOINTS>
<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 as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with the ENDPOINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with
respect to the other following objects are irrelevant. respect to the other following objects are irrelevant.
The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as The format of the 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |M| | Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Selection TLV | | Wavelength Selection TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV | | Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV |
. . . .
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 WA Object Figure 3 WA Object
o Reserved (16 bits) o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.
o Flags (16 bits) o Flags (16 bits)
The following new flags SHOULD be set One flag bit is allocated as follows:
. 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 for each hop of a computed LSP. of Explicit Label Control for each hop of a computed LSP.
Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs not be explicit Otherwise (M bit is set to 0), the label assigned by the PCE
(i.e., it can be suggested in the form of label set objects in need not be explicit (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of
the corresponding response, to allow distributed WA. In such label set objects in the corresponding response, to allow
case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as described in distributed WA. If M is 0, the PCE MUST return a Label Set
Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response. See Section 5 of this Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the response.
document for the encoding discussion of a Label Set Field in a See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion of a
PCRep message. Label Set Field in a PCRep message.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed.
. Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
details.
. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV (Variable): See Section
4.3 for details.
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 in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be set in the WA Object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT be
used when the M bit is cleared. 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
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
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
<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>]
See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field. See Section 4.3.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field.
The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD, recommended The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD3 (See Section
value is TBD. This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to 8.3). This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify
specify multiple restrictions. multiple restrictions.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved | | Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers | | Link Identifiers |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field | | Wavelength Restriction Field |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding 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
position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
portion of the range. portion of the range.
Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional. Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional.
o Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits) o Count (8 bits): The number of the link identifiers
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 (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.
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 Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section field. See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively. 4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not
exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier
types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate
errors associated with this type, a new Error-Type (TBD8) and an
Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for
the details.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329] The link identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329]
or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203]. or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].
<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 sub-TLV IPv4 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 = 1 | Reserved | | Type = 1 | Reserved (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) | | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | Reserved | | Type = 2 | Reserved (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) | | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | | IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID | | TE Node ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field
Type (8 bits): It indicates the type of the link identifier.
Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.
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 Section 2.6 in is encoded as a Label Set field as specified in Section 2.6 in
[RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC label, defined in [RFC7579] with base label encoded as a 32 bit LSC label, defined in
[RFC6205]. See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier [RFC6205]. See [RFC6205] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier
and n, as well as [RFC7579] for the details of each action. and n, as well as [RFC7579] for the details of each 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 (4 bits):
0 - Inclusive List 0 - Inclusive List
1 - Exclusive List 1 - Exclusive List
2 - Inclusive Range 2 - Inclusive Range
3 - Exclusive Range 3 - Exclusive Range
4 - Bitmap Set 4 - Bitmap Set
Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific Num Labels (12 bits): It is generally the number of labels. It has a
meaning depending on the action value. Num Labels is a 12 bit specific meaning depending on the action value.
integer.
Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field. Length (16 bits): It 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 includes the check of signal processing Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing
capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP. Moreover, capabilities at each interface against requested capability; this
a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions for those requirement MAY be implemented by the IGP. Moreover, a PCC should
signal compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link. be able to indicate additional restrictions to signal processing
compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link.
The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described The supported signal processing capabilities are those described in
in [RFC7446]: [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
BANDWIDTH object. BANDWIDTH object.
skipping to change at page 14, line 8 skipping to change at page 14, line 20
signal-compatibility-restriction ::= signal-compatibility-restriction ::=
<Optical Interface Class List> <Client Signal> <Optical Interface Class List> <Client Signal>
The encoding for the Optical Interface Class List is described in The encoding for the Optical Interface Class List is described in
Section 4.1 of [RFC7581]. Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].
The encoding for the Client Signal Information is described in The encoding for the Client Signal Information is described in
Section 4.2 of [RFC7581]. Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion XRO Sub-Object 4.4.1. 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. [RFC5440] defines how Exclude Route
Object (XRO) sub-object is used. In this draft, we add a new XRO
sub-object, signal processing sub-object.
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:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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 Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition of X, Type, Length and
Attribute. Attribute.
The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.
interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node).
The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition The Attribute field (8 bits) indicates how the exclusion sub-object
[RFC7689]. is to be interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1
(Node).
4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion The permitted sub-sub objects are the Optical Interface Class List
and the Client Signal information whose encodings are described in
Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of [RFC7581], respectively.
Similar to the XRO sub-object the PCC/PCE should be able to include 4.4.2. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion
Similar to the XRO sub-object, the PCC/PCE should be able to include
particular types of signal processing along the path in order to 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.
[RFC5440] defines how Include Route Object (IRO) sub-object is used.
In this draft, we add a new IRO sub-object, signal processing sub-
object.
This is supported by adding the sub-object "processing" defined for This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop
ERO in [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object. Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP
IRO object [RFC5440].
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 request as discussed in Section 4. Recall that wavelength allocation request 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
allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the allocates which label to use for each interface/node along the
path. path.
(b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of (b) By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential labels to allocate by each node along the path. 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 allocation. signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.
The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD, recommended value is TBD. The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See Section 8.4). The
The TLV data is defined as follows: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |M| | Type | Length |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier | | Link Identifier |
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) | | Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . // // . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at page 16, line 33
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: Identifies the interface to which assignment
assignment wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. for Link wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier
Identifier encoding. encoding.
o Allocated Wavelength(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated o Allocated Wavelength(s): Indicates the allocated wavelength(s) to
wavelength(s) to the link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for encoding be associated with the Link Identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for
details. encoding 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 [RFC7570]. The type carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570].
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 (TBD8) 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 (TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows: follows:
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request . Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA
and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to request and the PCE is not capable of processing the request
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a due to insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an Error-value(Error- with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-
value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The value(Error-value=1). The PCE stops processing the request.
corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC. The corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
. Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request . Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA
and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST request and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE
send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-
and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops
the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be processing the request. The corresponding RWA computation
cancelled at the PCC. MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator . Error-Type=TBD8; Error-value=3: if a PCE receives a RWA
request and there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not
exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown
identifier types, no matching link for a given identifier,
etc.), the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR
Object (Error-Type=TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-value=3).
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 is 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 TBD7: 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
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following 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
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following 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 6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Extensions to a MIB or a YANG model should be defined, so as to
cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this document.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness 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].
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation 6.3. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.4 of [RFC5440] section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise
WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
6.6. Impact on Network Operation 6.5. 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
The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
this document, this document does not introduce any new security this document, this document does not introduce any new security
issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information
distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used. distributed by WSON, PCEPS [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.
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] TBD1 WA 1: Wavelength-Assignment [This.I-D]
8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV 8.2. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV wavelength selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Selection [This.I-D] TBD2 Wavelength Selection [This.I-D]
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV 8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Sections 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D] TBD3 Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D]
Constraint Constraint
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV 8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the 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 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 the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D] TBD4 Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D]
8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV 8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Optical Interface [This.I-D] TBD5 Optical Interface [This.I-D]
Class List Class List
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). indicators).
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Client Signal Information [This.I-D] TBD6 Client Signal Information [This.I-D]
8.7. New No-Path Reasons 8.7. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Section 5.2., a new bit flag are defined to be 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 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 NO-PATH Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible
route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength route was found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RWA path
computation request. computation request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
TLV Flag Field" subregistry TLV Flag Field" subregistry
(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] TBD7 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 WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the ""PCEP-ERROR Object
Error 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] TBD8 WSON RWA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory Memory
2: RWA computation {This.I-D] 2: RWA computation {This.I-D]
Not supported 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
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE)
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009. March 2009.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
January, 2011.
[RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute [RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute
in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015. in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, July 2015.
[RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element
Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC
7579, June 2015.
[RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength [RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015. Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689, November 2015.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and [RFC7688] Y. Lee, and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015. Optical Networks", RFC 7688, November 2015.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [PCEP-GMPLS] C. Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS",
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471. January 2003. 3471. January 2003.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) [RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., Y. Rekhter, Ed., " OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5329] A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP [RFC5420] Farrel, A. "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[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.[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel, 2009.[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. Takeda, and A. Farrel,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April
2009. 2009.
[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.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
January, 2011.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors),"Routing and Wavelength [RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein. (Editors),"Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015. Optical Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.
[RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "Routing and Wavelength
Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Lee, "General Network Element
Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", RFC
7579, June 2015.
[RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.
[RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS: [RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, "PCEPS:
Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC
8253, October 2017. 8253, October 2017.
[PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link- [PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee- State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress. pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
 End of changes. 106 change blocks. 
200 lines changed or deleted 229 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/