Network Working Group S. Brorson (Axiowave Networks) Internet Draft S. Dharanikota (Nayna Networks, Inc) Expiration Date: January 2001 J. Drake (Calient Networks) David Drysdale (Data Connection) W. L. Edwards (iLambda Networks) Adrian Farrel (Movaz Networks) R. Goyal (Axiowave Networks) Monika Jaeger (T-systems) R. Krishnan (Axiowave Networks) Raghu Mannam (Hitachi Telecom) Eric Mannie (Ebone (GTS)) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel IPO-NSG) J. Shantigram (PhotonEx Corp.) E. Snyder (PhotonEx Corp.) George Swallow (Cisco Systems) G. Tumuluri (Calient Networks) Y. Xue (UUNET/WorldCom) Lucy Yong (Williams Communications) J. Yu (Zaffire, Inc) Editors: Andre Fredette (PhotonEx Corp.) Jonathan Lang (Calient Networks) July 2001 Link Management Protocol (LMP) for DWDM Optical Line Systems draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 ABSTRACT A suite of protocols is being developed in the IETF to allow networks consisting of photonic switches (PXCs), optical crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches, DWDM optical line systems (OLSs), and optical add-drop multiplexors (OADMs) to use an MPLS- based control plane to dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability using protection and restoration techniques. As part of this protocol suite, the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [LMP] is defined to "maintain control channel connectivity, verify component link connectivity, and isolate link, fiber, or channel failures within the network." In it's present form, [LMP] focuses on peer communications (eg. OXC-to-OXC). In this document we propose extensions to LMP for use with OLSs. These extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface Requirements" described in [OLI]. CONTENTS 1. Introduction.......................................................5 2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems............................7 2.1. Control Channel Management.......................................8 2.2. Link Verification................................................8 2.3. Link Summarization...............................................8 2.3.1. Link Group ID..................................................9 2.3.2. Link Descriptor...............................................10 2.3.3. Shared Risk Link Group Identifier (SRLG):.....................11 2.3.4. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate.................................11 2.3.5. Optical Protection............................................12 2.3.6. Span Length:..................................................13 2.3.7. Administrative Group (Color)..................................13 2.4. Fault Management................................................14 2.4.1. ChannelStatus Message (MsgType = TBD).........................14 2.4.1.1. Channel Status TLV..........................................15 2.4.1.2. Group Status TLV............................................16 2.4.1.3. Message ID TLV..............................................17 2.4.2. ChannelStatusAck Message (MsgType = TBD)......................17 2.4.3. ChannelStatusReq Message (MsgType = TBD)......................18 2.4.3.1. Channel Entity TLV..........................................19 2.5. Trace Monitoring................................................19 2.5.1. TraceMonitor Message (MsgType = TBD)..........................19 2.5.1.1. Trace TLV...................................................20 2.5.2. TraceMonitorAck Message (MsgType = TBD).......................21 2.5.3. TraceMonitorNack Message (MsgType = TBD)......................22 2.5.4. TraceMismatch Message (MsgType = TBD).........................22 2.5.5. TraceMismatchAck Message (MsgType = TBD)......................23 2.5.6. TraceReq Message (MsgType = TBD)..............................24 2.5.7. TraceReport Message (MsgType = TBD)...........................24 3. Security Considerations...........................................25 4. Work Items........................................................25 5. References........................................................26 6. Author's Addresses................................................27 [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 SUMMARY FOR SUB-IP RELATED INTERNET DRAFTS (Section Requested by Bert and Scott) SUMMARY This work is motivated by two main issues. The first is the need to enhance the fault detection and recovery support for photonic switches (PXCs), and the second is to enhance the discovery of link characteristics for optical networks in general. GMPLS is being developed to allow networks consisting of photonic switches (PXCs), optical crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches and optical line systems (OLS) (or DWDM systems) to use an MPLS-based control plane to dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability using protection and restoration techniques. As part of this protocol suite, the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [LMP] is defined to "maintain control channel connectivity, verify component link connectivity, and isolate link, fiber, or channel failures within the network." In it's present form, [LMP] focuses on peer communications (e.g., OXC-to-OXC). In this document we propose extensions to LMP for use with optical line systems. These extensions allow the OLS to inform attached devices, such as routers or PXCs, of (1) link properties needed for routing/signalling and (2) link failures that can be used to drive failure recovery protocols. RELATED DOCUMENTS http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK lmp-wdm fits in the Control part of the sub-ip work. WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG lmp-wdm enhances the ability of circuit switches and routers using MPLS-based control protocols to dynamically discover link properties and to learn about link status. The link properties can be useful during signalling of paths, and the link status information is essential for fault detection and recovery. Furthermore, lmp-wdm is independent of any signalling protocol, so it can be used by both distributed control system, such as GMPLS, and centralized management systems. Therefore, lmp-wdm supports the following CCAMP objectives: [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 . Define signalling protocols and measurement protocols such that they support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies (e.g., O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE) using input from technology-specific working groups such as MPLS, IPO, etc. . Define signalling and measurement protocols that are independent of each other. This allows applications other than the signalling protocol to use the measurement protocol; it also allows the signalling protocol to use knowledge obtained by means other than the measurement protocol. . Abstract link and path properties needed for link and path protection. Define signalling mechanisms for path protection, diverse routing and fast path restoration. Ensure that multi- layer path protection and restoration functions are achievable using the defined signalling and measurement protocols, either separately or in combination. . Define how the properties of network resources gathered by the measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS. JUSTIFICATION draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-00.txt (lmp-wdm) is a protocol proposal intended to satisfy the optical link interface (OLI) requirements (draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt - described separately). The requirements document has achieved consensus in the CCAMP working group. lmp-wdm has been discussed in the past two ccamp sessions and a competing proposal, draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt (ntip), was discussed in the last one. There has been a great deal of interest in this work by both network operators and vendors. [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 1. Introduction Future networks will consist of photonic switches (PXCs), optical crossconnects (OXCs), routers, switches, DWDM optical line systems (OLSs), and optical add-drop multiplexors (OADMs) that use the GMPLS control plane to dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability using protection and restoration techniques. A pair of nodes (e.g., a PXC and an OLS) may be connected by thousands of fibers. Furthermore, multiple fibers and/or multiple wavelengths may be combined into a single bundled link. [LMP] Defines the Link Management Protocol (LMP) to "maintain control channel connectivity, verify component link connectivity, and isolate link, fiber, or channel failures within the network." In it's present form, [LMP] focuses on peer communications (eg. OXC- to-OXC) as illustrated in Figure 1. In this document, extensions to LMP for use with OLSs are proposed. These extensions are intended to satisfy the "Optical Link Interface Requirements" described in [OLI]. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with LMP as defined in [LMP]. +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | | ----- | | | | ----- | | | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 | | | ----- | | | | ----- | | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ ^ ^ | | +----------------------LMP----------------------+ Figure 1: Current LMP Model A great deal of information about a link between two OXCs is known by the OLS. Exposing this information to the control plane via LMP can improve network usability by further reducing required manual configuration and also greatly enhancing fault detection and recovery. Fault detection is particularly an issue when the network is using all-optical photonic switches (PXC). Once a connection is established, PXCs have only limited visibility into the health of the connection. Even though the PXC is all-optical, long-haul OLSs typically terminate channels electrically and regenerate them optically, which presents an opportunity to monitor the health of a channel between PXCs. LMP-WDM can then be used by the OLS to provide this information to the PXC using LMP-WDM. The model for extending LMP to OLSs is shown in Figure 2. [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | | ----- | | | | ----- | | | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 | | | ----- | | | | ----- | | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | | +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP----+ | | | +----------------------LMP----------------------+ Figure 2: Extended LMP Model In this model, an OXC may have multiple LMP sessions corresponding to multiple peering relationships. At each level, LMP provides link management functionality (i.e., control channel management, physical connectivity verification, link property correlation) for that peering relationship. For example, the OXC-OXC LMP sessions in Figure 2 are used to build traffic-engineering (TE) links for GMPLS signaling and routing, and are managed as described in [LMP]. At the transport level, the OXC-OLS LMP session (shown in Figure 2) is used to augment knowledge about the links between the OXCs. The management of these LMP sessions is discussed in this draft. It is important to note the an OXC may peer with one or more OLSs and an OLS may peer with one or more OXCs. Although there are many similarities between an OXC-OXC LMP session and an OXC-OLS LMP session, particularly for control management and link verification, there are some differences as well. These differences can primarily be attributed to the nature of an OXC-OLS link, and the purpose of OXC-OLS LMP sessions. As previously mentioned, the OXC-OXC links provide the basis for GMPLS signaling and routing at the optical layer. The information exchanged over LMP-WDM sessions is used to augment knowledge about the links between OXCs. In order for the information exchanged over the OXC-OLS LMP sessions to be used by the OXC-OXC session, the information must be coordinated by the OXC. However, the two LMP sessions are run independently and MUST be maintained separately. One critical requirement when running an OXC-OLS LMP session is the ability of the OLS to make a data link transparent when not doing the verification procedure. This is because the same data link may be verified between OXC-OLS and between OXC-OXC. Currently, the BeginVerify procedure is used to coordinate the Test procedure (and hence the transparency/opaqueness of the data links) as described in [LMP]. To maintain independence between the sessions, it MUST be possible for the LMP sessions to come up in any order. In particular, it [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 MUST be possible for an OXC-OXC LMP session to come up without an OXC-OLS LMP session being brought up, and vice-versa. This draft focuses on extensions required for use with opaque transmission systems. Work is ongoing in the area of completely transparent wavelength routing; however, it is premature to identify the necessary characteristics to advertise. That said, the protocol described in this document provides the necessary framework in which to advertise additional information as it is deemed appropriate. Additional details about the extensions required for LMP are outlined in the next section. 2. LMP Extensions for Optical Line Systems As currently defined, LMP consists of four types of functions: 1. Control Channel Management 2. Link Verification 3. Link Summarization 4. Fault Management All four functions are supported in LMP-WDM. Additionally, a trace monitoring function is added. In this document we follow the convention of [LMP] and use the term "data link" to refer to either "component links" or "ports". It is very important to understand the subtle distinctions between the different types of links being considered in the extended LMP- WDM. For example, in Figure 2 when OXC1 and OXC2 complete the verify process, the links being verified are the end-to-end links between the OXC's. It is the TE link composed of these "data links" that are advertised in the routing protocols and used for the purposes of connection setup. The verify procedure between OXC1 and OLS1, on the other hand verifies the shorter link between these two nodes. However, each of these shorter links is a segment of one of the larger end-to-end links. The verify serves two functions: to verify connectivity and exchange handles by which each data link is referred. Furthermore, it is up to the OXC to correlate the handles between the various LMP sessions. Once a control channel has been established and the OXC-OLS verification procedure has been completed successfully, the OXC and OLS may exchange information regarding link configuration (link summarization). An OXC may also receive notification regarding the operational status from an OLS (ChannelStatus). In subsequent sections, specific changes are proposed to extend LMP to work with OLSs. [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 2.1. Control Channel Management As in [LMP], we do not specify the exact implementation of the control channel; it could be, for example, a separate wavelength or fiber, an Ethernet link, an IP tunnel through a separate management network, or the overhead bytes of a data link. The control channel management for OXC-OLS links is the same as for OXC-OXC links, as described in [LMP]. A flag in the LMP Common Header is used identify the transmitting node as an OLS. This informs the receiving node that the LMP-WDM extensions will be used for the session. If the LMP-WDM extensions are not supported by the node, it MUST reply to the Config Message with a ConfigNack Message. 2.2. Link Verification The Test procedure used with OLSs is the same as described in [LMP]. The VerifyTransportMechanism (included in the BeginVerify and BeginVerifyAck messages) is used to allow nodes to negotiate a link verification method and is essential for transmission systems which have access to overhead bytes rather than the payload. The VerifyId (provided by the remote node in the BeginVerifyAck message, and used in all subsequent Test messages) is used to differentiate Test messages from different LMP sessions. 2.3. Link Summarization As in [LMP], the LinkSummary message is used to synchronize the Interface Ids and correlate the properties of the TE link. Additional type-length values (TLVs) are defined to extend the LinkSummary message to include link characteristics. The TLVs described in the following subsections are transmitted as Data Link Sub-TLVs in the Data Link TLV (see [LMP]). The link characteristics, in general, are those characteristics needed by the control plane for constraint-based routing and connection establishment. The format of the Data Link Sub-TLVs follows the LMP TLV format described in [LMP]. The TLV format is shown below for readability: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (TLV Object) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [Page 8] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 N: 1 bit The N flag indicates if the object is a negotiable parameter (N=1) or a non-negotiable parameter (N=0). Note: none of the Data Link TLVs that are defined in LMP-WDM are negotiable and the N bit MUST be set to N=0. Type: 15 bits The Type field indicates the TLV type. Length: 16 bits The Length field indicates the length of the TLV object in bytes. The following Link Characteristics are advertised on a per data link basis. 2.3.1. Link Group ID A local ID assigned to a group of data links. This ID can be used to reduce the control traffic in the case of a failure by enabling the systems to send a single message for a group instead of individual messages for each member of the group. A link may be a member of multiple groups. This is achieved by presenting multiple Link Group ID TLVs in the LinkSummary message. The Link Group ID feature allows Link Groups to be assigned based upon the types of fault correlation and aggregation supported by a given OLS. For example, an OLS could create a Link Group for each laser in the OLS. This group could then be associated with user ports during discovery/initialization time. Multiple user ports might even be associated with a single group (depending on the kind of multiplexing supported in the system). If a laser fails, the OLS can report a failure for the group. In the OXC this translates into the failure of the associated link or links. Another group could be assigned for a fiber to report all ports down that are associated with that fiber if LOS is detected at the fiber level. Depending on the physical OLS implementation, it may make sense to allocate other groups, such as all ports on a particular circuit pack. With this method, the OXC only needs to know about the externally visible ports. The OLS can associate the ports with logical groups and the OXC doesn't need to know anything about the physical OLS implementation or how ports are multiplexed electrically or optically within the system. The format of the Link Group ID TLV is as follows: [Page 9] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 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| Type = TBD | Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 Group ID: 32 bits Group ID 0xFFFFFFFF is reserved and indicates all data links in a TE link. All data links are members of Link Group 0xFFFFFFFF by default. 2.3.2. Link Descriptor The Link Descriptor TLV represents the characteristics of the link comprising the encoding type and bandwidth characteristics. This information is needed for constructing a circuit. The OXC must match the link information between incoming and outgoing interfaces for a given path. Note: This information may be a prerequisite for running the verify protocol, thus it may be redundant when verify is being used. The encoding for the information in this TLV are the same as those for the link descriptor sub-TLV defined in [KRB00a]. 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| Type = TBD | Length = 12 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Link Encoding Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum Reservable Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Maximum Reservable Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 12 [Page 10] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 Link Encoding Type: 32 bits See [KRB00a] for encoding. Minimum Reservable Bandwidth: 32 bits See [KRB00a] for encoding. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth: 32 bits See [KRB00a] for encoding. 2.3.3. Shared Risk Link Group Identifier (SRLG): SRLGs of which the link is a member. This information is manually configured on an OLS by the user. Used for diverse path computation. 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| Type = TBD | 4 * No. of SRLGs in link | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Shared Risk Link Group Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ............ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Shared Risk Link Group Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 * No. of SRLGs in link Shared Risk Link Group Value: 32 bits List as many SRLGs as apply. 2.3.4. Bit Error Rate (BER) Estimate This TLV provides an estimate of the BER for the data link. The bit error rate (BER) is the proportion of bits that have errors relative to the total number of bits received in a transmission, usually expressed as ten to a negative power. For example, a transmission might have a BER of "10 to the minus 13", meaning that, out of every 10,000,000,000,000 bits transmitted, one bit may be in error. The BER is an indication of overall signal quality. [Page 11] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 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| Type = TBD | Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | BER | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 Reserved: 24 bits Must be set to zero on transmit and ignored on receive. BER: 8 bits The exponent from the BER representation described above. For example, if the BER is 10 to the minus X, the BER field is set to X. 2.3.5. Optical Protection Whether the OLS protects the link internally. This information can be used as a measure of quality of the link. It may be advertised by routing and used by signaling as a selection criterion as described in [GMPLS]. 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| Type = TBD | Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Link Flags| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 Reserved: 24 bits Must be set to zero on transmit and ignored on receive. Link Flags: 6 bits [Page 12] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 Encoding for Link Flags can be found in [GMPLS]. 2.3.6. Span Length: Distance of fiber in OLS. May be used as a routing metric or to estimate delay. 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| Type = TBD | Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Span Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 Span Length: 32 bits Length of WDM span in meters expressed as an unsigned integer. 2.3.7. Administrative Group (Color) The administrative group (or Color) to which the data link belongs. 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| Type = TBD | Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Group | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 15 bits = TBD Length: 16 bits = 4 Administrative Group: 32 bits A 32 bit value. [Page 13] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 2.4. Fault Management Fault management consists of three major functions: 1. Fault Detection 2. Fault Localization 3. Fault Notification The actual Fault Detection mechanisms are the responsibility of the individual nodes and are not specified as part of this protocol. Fault detection mechanisms may include such things as bit error rate (BER) exceeding a threshold, loss of signal (LOS) and certain SONET- level errors. The fault notification and localization procedure is essentially the same as in the current version of LMP, however, it is executed at two levels in the extended OXC-OLS LMP. OXCs continue to execute the OXC-to-OXC fault localization as currently specified. The main difference is that the OLS may initiate the process (both downstream and upstream). It is important to note that the OLS does not participate in end-to-end fault localization as described in [LMP]. The OLS may also execute its own fault localization process that may allow it to determine the location of the fault much more specifically than the OXCs can. For example, the OLS may be able to pinpoint the fault to a particular amplifier along a set of fibers that can span 1000's of kilometers. To report individual link failure and recovery conditions, LMP-WDM uses a new message called the ChannelStatus Message. The ChannelStatus Message is described below. 2.4.1. ChannelStatus Message (MsgType = TBD) The ChannelStatus message is sent over the control channel and is used to report the operational status of a data link. While channels are active, a ChannelStatus Message MUST be sent every time that the status of a channel changes. A channel status message MUST also be sent if a ChannelStatusReq Message is received. Different acknowledgement rules are used depending on why the ChannelStatus message is being sent. If an unsolicited ChannelStatus message is sent due to a change in status of a data link, the receiving node MUST acknowledge the ChannelStatus message with a ChannelStatusAck. However, if the ChannelStatus message is being sent in response to a ChannelStatusReq message, the ChannelStatus message serves as the acknowledgement for the ChannelStatusReq message. Therefore, the following acknowledgement rules are used: [Page 14] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 1. If a ChannelStatus message is sent in response to a ChannelStatusReq message, the ChannelStatus message MUST include the Message ID TLV. 2. A neighboring node that receives a ChannelStatus message that does not include the Message ID TLV message MUST respond with a ChannelStatusAck message. The format of the ChannelStatus message is as follows: ::= The format of the ChannelStatus object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Status TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the ChannelStatusAck message. The ChannelStatus message MUST include at least one Status TLV. To specify a status for the whole TE Link, use the group status TLV and link group ID 0xFFFFFFFF. 2.4.1.1. Channel Status TLV 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| TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Interface Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Condition | (Reserved) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Channel Status TLV is non-negotiable. [Page 15] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 Length: 16 bits The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format). Local Interface Id: 32 bits This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component Interface Id) of the data link that has failed. This is within the scope of the TE Link Id. Condition: 8 bits Status Condition: Value Condition Description ----- --------- ----------- 1 Signal Okay Data link is operational. (OK) 2 Signal Degrade A soft failure caused by a BER (SD) exceeding a preselected threshold. The specific BER used to define the threshold is may be configured, but is typically in the range of 10-5 to 10-9. 3 Signal Fail A hard signal failure including (but (SF) not limited to) loss of signal (LOS), loss of frame (LOF), Line AIS, or a BER (BIP-8 measure through B1/B2) exceeding a specified value. 2.4.1.2. Group Status TLV 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| TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Link Group Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Condition | (Reserved) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Group Status TLV is non-negotiable. Length: 16 bits The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format). Link Group Id: 32 bits This is the Link Group ID. [Page 16] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 Condition: 8 bits The same conditions described in Section 2.4.1.1 are used. 2.4.1.3. Message ID TLV The Message ID TLV MUST be included in the ChannelStatus message if it is being sent in response to a ChannelStatusReq message. 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| TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote TE Link Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits This is copied from the ChannelStatusReq message being acknowledged. Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits This is copied from the Common Header of the ChannelStatusReq message being acknowledged. 2.4.2. ChannelStatusAck Message (MsgType = TBD) The ChannelStatusAck message is sent in response to a ChannelStatus message that does not include the Message ID TLV. The ChannelStatusAck message is used to indicate that all of the status TLVs in the ChannelStatus message have been receive without error. The format is as follows: ::= The ChannelStatusAck object has the following format: [Page 17] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote TE Link Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits This is copied from the ChannelStatus message being acknowledged. Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits This is copied from the Common Header of the ChannelStatus message being acknowledged. 2.4.3. ChannelStatusReq Message (MsgType = TBD) The ChannelStatusReq message is sent over the control channel and is used to request the status of one or more data link(s). A neighboring node that receives a ChannelStatusReq message MUST respond with a ChannelStatus message. The format is as follows: ::= The format of the ChannelStatusReq object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Channel Entity TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the ChannelStatusReqAck message. [Page 18] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 A ChannelStatusReq Message MAY include zero or more Channel Entity TLVs. If no Entity TLVs are included, the receiving node MUST report on all data links within the TE link. 2.4.3.1. Channel Entity TLV 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| TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Interface Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Channel Entity TLV is non-negotiable. Length: 16 bits The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format). Local Interface Id: 32 bits This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component Interface Id) of the data link for which status is requested. This is within the scope of the TE Link Id. 2.5. Trace Monitoring The trace monitoring features described in this section allow a PXC to do basic trace monitoring on circuits by using the capabilities on an attached OLS. . An OLS Client may request the OLS to monitor a link for a specific pattern in the overhead using the TraceMonitorReq Message. An example of this overhead is the SONET Section Trace message transmitted in the J0 byte. If the actual trace message does not match the expected trace message, the OLS MUST report the mismatch condition. . An OLS client may request the value of the current trace message on a given data link using the TraceReq Message. 2.5.1. TraceMonitor Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceMonitor message is sent over the control channel and is used to request an OLS to monitor one or more data links for a specific trace value. An OLS MUST respond to a TraceMonitor message with either a TraceMonitorAck or TraceMonitorNack Message. [Page 19] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 ::= The format of the TraceMonitor object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Trace TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the TraceMonitorAck or TraceMonitorNack message. The TraceMonitor message MUST include at least one Trace TLV. 2.5.1.1. Trace TLV 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| TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Interface Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Trace Type | Trace Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Trace Message // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Trace TLV is non-negotiable. Length: 16 bits The Length is in bytes (see LMP TLV format). Local Interface Id: 32 bits [Page 20] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component Interface Id) of the data link for which the trace monitoring is requested. This is within the scope of the TE Link Id. Trace Type: 16 bits The type of the trace message: 1 û SONET Section Trace (J0 Byte) 2 û SONET Path Trace (J1 Byte) 3 û SDH Section Trace (J0 Byte) 4 û SDH Path Trace (J1 Byte) Other types TBD. Trace Length: 16 bits The Length in bytes of the trace message provided. Trace Message: Expected message. The valid length and value combinatios are determined by the specific technology (e.g., SONET or SDH) and are beyond the scope of this document. The message MUST be padded with zeros to a 32-bit boundary, if necessary. 2.5.2. TraceMonitorAck Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceMonitorAck message is used to indicate that all of the Trace TLVs in the TraceMonitor message have been received and processed correctly. The format is as follows: ::= The TraceMonitorAck object has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote TE Link Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits This is copied from the TraceMonitor message being acknowledged. Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits [Page 21] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMonitor message being acknowledged. 2.5.3. TraceMonitorNack Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceMonitorNack message is used to indicate that one or more of the Trace TLVs in the TraceMonitor message was not processed correctly. This could be because the trace monitoring requested is not supported or there was an error in one of the values. The format is as follows: ::= The TraceMonitorNack object has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote TE Link Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Rejected Trace TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits This is copied from the TraceMonitor message being acknowledged. Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMonitor message being acknowledged. Rejected Trace TLVs: 32 bits Trace TLVs that were not accepted. Copied from TraceMonitor message. If none are included, it means that all Trace TLVs are rejected. 2.5.4. TraceMismatch Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceMismatch message is sent over the control channel and is used to report a trace mismatch on a data link for which trace monitoring was requested. [Page 22] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 A neighboring node that receives a TraceMismatch message MUST respond with a TraceMismatchAck message. The format is as follows: ::= The format of the TraceMismatch object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Local Interface Ids // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the TraceMismatchAck message. Local Interface Id: 32 bits per Id This is the local Interface Id (either Port Id or Component Interface Id) of the data link that has a trace mismatch. This is within the scope of the TE Link Id. Multiple Local Interface Ids may be reported in the same message. 2.5.5. TraceMismatchAck Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceMismatchAck message is used to acknowledge receipt of a TraceMismatch message. The format is as follows: ::= The TraceMismatchAck object has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote TE Link Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits [Page 23] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 This is copied from the TraceMismatch message being acknowledged. Remote TE Link Id: 32 bits This is copied from the Common Header of the TraceMismatch message being acknowledged. 2.5.6. TraceReq Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceReq message is sent over the control channel and is used to request the current trace value of indicated data links. A node that receives a TraceReq message MUST respond with a TraceReport message. The format is as follows: ::= The format of the TraceReq object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Channel Entity TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits When combined with the Local TE Link Id in the common header of the received packet, the MessageId field uniquely identifies a message. This value is incremented and only decreases when the value wraps. This is used for message acknowledgement in the TraceReport message. A TraceReq Message may include zero or more Channel Entity TLVs (as described in Section 2.4.3). If no Channel Entity TLVs are included, the receiving node MUST report on all data links within the TE link. 2.5.7. TraceReport Message (MsgType = TBD) The TraceReport message is sent over the control channel after receiving a TraceReq message. [Page 24] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 ::= The format of the TraceReport object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MessageId | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (Trace TLVs) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MessageId: 32 bits This is copied from the TraceReq message being acknowledged. The TraceReport message MUST include a Trace TLV (as described in Section 2.5.1) for each link requested. 3. Security Considerations LMP-WDM introduces no new security issues over [LMP]. As in [LMP], LMP-WDM exchanges may be authenticated using the Cryptographic authentication option. MD5 is currently the only message digest algorithm specified. 4. Work Items The following work items have been identified. They will be addressed in a future version of this draft: 1. Error messages may be needed in response to some of the defined messages. 2. More discussion on Trace Monitoring procedures is needed. 3. Provide description of procedures and interactions for running LMP and LMP-WDM on the same link. Include description of how control over link transparency works during the Verify procedure. 4. Determine whether some functions are optional and, if so, provide a capability negotiation mechanism. [Page 25] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 5. References [GMPLS] Berger, L., Ashwood-Smith, Peter, editors, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling- 02.txt, (work in progress), March 2001. [Bra96] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [DBC00] Drake, J., Blumenthal, D., Ceuppens, L., et al., "Interworking between Photonic (Optical) Switches and Transmission Systems over Optical Link Interface (OLI) using Extensions to LMP", OIF Contribution oif2000.254, (work in progress), November 2000. [KRB00] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering," Internet Draft, draft- kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt, (work in progress), July 2000. [KRB00a] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A., et al, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," Internet Draft, draft-kompella-ospf-extensions-00.txt, (work in progress), July 2000. [LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., Drake, J., Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., Saha, D., Basak, D., Sandick, H., Zinin, A., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-03.txt, (work in progress), July 2001. [OLI] Fredette, A., Editor, "Optical Link Interface Requirements", Internet Draft, draft-many-oli-reqts- 00.txt, (work in progress), June 2001. [SDH] ITU-T G.707, "Network node interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)", 1996. [SONET] GR-253-CORE, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria", Telcordia Technologies, Issue 3, September 2000 [T.50] ITU-T T.50, "International Reference Alphabet (IRA) (formerly International Alphabet No. 5 or IA5) Information technology 7-bit coded character set for information interchange.", 1992. [Page 26] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 6. Author's Addresses Stuart Brorson Monika Jaeger Axiowave Networks T-systems 100 Nickerson Road Monika.Jaeger@t-systems.de Marlborough, MA 01752 email: sdb@axiowave.com Ram Krishnan Axiowave Networks Sudheer Dharanikota 100 Nickerson Road Nayna Networks, Inc. Marlborough, MA 01752 157 Topaz Drive, email: ram@axiowave.com Milpitas, CA 95035 email: sudheer@nayna.com Jonathan P. Lang Calient Networks John Drake Court25 Castilian Drive Calient Networks Goleta, CA 93117 5853 Rue Ferrari email: jplang@calient.net San Jose, CA 95138 email: jdrake@calient.net Raghu Mannam Hitachi Telecom (USA), Inc. David Drysdale rmannam@hitel.com Data Connection Ltd dmd@dataconnection.com Eric Mannie Ebone (GTS) W. L. Edwards Terhulpsesteenweg 6A iLambda Networks 1560 Hoeilaart Aspen, CO Belgium email: texas@ilambda.com Email: eric.mannie@gts.com Adrian Farrel (Movaz Networks) Dimitri Papadimitriou Movaz Networks, Inc. Alcatel IPO NSG-NA 7926 Jones Branch Drive, Francis Wellesplein 1, Suite 615 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium McLean, VA 22102 email: dimitri.Papadimitriou email: afarrel@movaz.com @alcatel.be Andre Fredette Jagan Shantigram PhotonEx Corporation PhotonEx Corporation 8C Preston Court 8C Preston Bedford, MA 01730 Bedford, MA 01730 email: fredette@photonex.com email: jagan@photonex.com Rohit Goyal Ed Snyder Axiowave Networks PhotonEx Corporation 100 Nickerson Road 8C Preston Court Marlborough, MA 01752 Bedford, MA 01730 email: rgoyal@axiowave.com email: esnyder@photonex.com [Page 27] Internet Draft draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt July 2001 George Swallow Lucy Yong Cisco Systems, Inc. Williams Communications 250 Apollo Drive 2 East First Street Chelmsford, MA 01824 Tulsa, OK 74172 Email: swallow@cisco.com lucy.yong@wilcom.com Gopala Tumuluri John Yu Calient Networks Zaffire, Inc 5853 Rue Ferrari 2630 Orchard Parkway San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95134 email: krishna@calient.net email: jzyu@zaffire.com Yong Xue UUNET/WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Ashburn, VA 20148 email: yxue@uu.net [Page 28]