CCAMP Working Group I. Busi Internet Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational D. King Lancaster University H. Zheng Huawei Y. Xu CAICT Expires: May 2019 November 4, 2018 Transport Northbound Interface Applicability Statement draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-04 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2019. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Abstract Transport network domains, including Optical Transport Network (OTN) and Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) networks, are typically deployed based on a single vendor or technology platforms. They are often managed using proprietary interfaces to dedicated Element Management Systems (EMS), Network Management Systems (NMS) and increasingly Software Defined Network (SDN) controllers. A well-defined open interface to each domain management system or controller is required for network operators to facilitate control automation and orchestrate end-to-end services across multi-domain networks. These functions may be enabled using standardized data models (e.g. YANG), and appropriate protocol (e.g., RESTCONF). This document analyses the applicability of the YANG models being defined by IETF (TEAS and CCAMP WGs in particular) to support OTN single and multi-domain scenarios. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................4 1.1. The scope of this document................................4 1.2. Assumptions...............................................5 2. Terminology....................................................6 3. Conventions used in this document..............................7 3.1. Topology and traffic flow processing......................7 3.2. JSON code.................................................8 4. Scenarios Description..........................................9 Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 4.1. Reference Network.........................................9 4.1.1. Single-Domain Scenario..............................12 4.2. Topology Abstractions....................................12 4.3. Service Configuration....................................14 4.3.1. ODU Transit.........................................15 4.3.2. EPL over ODU........................................16 4.3.3. Other OTN Clients Services..........................17 4.3.4. EVPL over ODU.......................................18 4.3.5. EVPLAN and EVPTree Services.........................19 4.3.6. Dynamic Service Configuration.......................20 4.4. Multi-function Access Links..............................21 4.5. Protection and Restoration Configuration.................22 4.5.1. Linear Protection (end-to-end)......................22 4.5.2. Segmented Protection................................23 4.5.3. End-to-End Dynamic restoration......................24 4.5.4. Segmented Dynamic Restoration.......................25 4.6. Service Modification and Deletion........................25 4.7. Notification.............................................25 4.8. Path Computation with Constraint.........................26 5. YANG Model Analysis...........................................27 5.1. YANG Models for Topology Abstraction.....................27 5.1.1. Domain 1 Black Topology Abstraction.................28 5.1.2. Domain 2 Black Topology Abstraction.................30 5.1.3. Domain 3 White Topology Abstraction.................30 5.1.4. Multi-domain Topology Stitching.....................31 5.1.5. Access Links........................................33 5.2. YANG Models for Service Configuration....................35 5.2.1. ODU Transit Service.................................37 5.2.1.1. Single Domain Example..........................39 5.2.2. EPL over ODU Service................................40 5.2.3. Other OTN Client Services...........................42 5.2.4. EVPL over ODU Service...............................42 5.3. YANG Models for Protection Configuration.................43 5.3.1. Linear Protection (end-to-end)......................43 5.3.2. Segmented Protection................................43 6. Security Considerations.......................................43 7. IANA Considerations...........................................44 8. References....................................................44 8.1. Normative References.....................................44 8.2. Informative References...................................45 9. Acknowledgments...............................................46 Appendix A. Validating a JSON fragment against a YANG Model...47 A.1. Manipulation of JSON fragments..........................47 A.2. Comments in JSON fragments..............................48 Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 A.3. Validation of JSON fragments: DSDL-based approach.......48 A.4. Validation of JSON fragments: why not using a XSD-based approach......................................................49 Appendix B. Detailed JSON Examples............................50 B.1. JSON Examples for Topology Abstractions.................50 B.1.1. JSON Code: mpi1-otn-topology.json.................50 B.2. JSON Examples for Service Configuration.................66 B.2.1. JSON Code: mpi1-odu2-service-config.json..........66 B.2.2. JSON Code: mpi1-odu2-tunnel-config.json...........70 B.2.3. JSON Code: mpi1-epl-service-config.json...........70 1. Introduction Transport of packet services are critical for a wide-range of applications and services, including data center and LAN interconnects, Internet service backhauling mobile backhaul and enterprise Carrier Ethernet Services. These services are typically setup using stovepipe NMS and EMS platforms, often requiring propriety management platforms and legacy management interfaces. A clear goal of operators will be to automate the setup of transport services across multiple transport technology domains. A common open interface (API) to each domain controller and or management system is pre-requisite for network operators to control multi-vendor and multi-domain networks and also enable service provisioning coordination/automation. This can be achieved by using standardized YANG models, used together with an appropriate protocol (e.g., [RFC8040]). This document analyses the applicability of the YANG models being defined by IETF (TEAS and CCAMP WGs in particular) to support OTN single and multi-domain scenarios. 1.1. The scope of this document This document assumes a reference architecture, including interfaces, based on the Abstraction and Control of Traffic-Engineered Networks (ACTN), defined in [RFC8453]. The focus of this document is on the MPI (interface between the Multi Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC) and a Physical Network Controller (PNC), controlling a transport network domain). Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 It is worth noting that the same MPI analyzed in this document could be used between hierarchical MDSC controllers, as shown in Figure 4 of [RFC8453]. Detailed analysis of the CMI (interface between the Customer Network Controller (CNC) and the MDSC) as well as of the interface between service and network orchestrators are outside the scope of this document. However, some considerations and assumptions about the information could be described when needed. The relationship between the current IETF YANG models and the type of ACTN interfaces can be found in [ACTN-YANG]. Therefore, it considers the TE Topology YANG model defined in [TE-TOPO], with the OTN Topology augmentation defined in [OTN-TOPO] and the TE Tunnel YANG model defined in [TE-TUNNEL], with the OTN Tunnel augmentation defined in [OTN-TUNNEL]. The ONF Technical Recommendations for Functional Requirements for the transport API in [ONF TR-527] and the ONF transport API multi-domain examples in [ONF GitHub] have been considered as input for defining the reference scenarios analyzed in this document. 1.2. Assumptions This document is making the following assumptions, still to be validated with TEAS WG: 1. The MDSC can request, at the MPI, a PNC to setup a Transit Tunnel Segment using the TE Tunnel YANG model: in this case, since the endpoints of the E2E Tunnel are outside the domain controlled by that PNC, the MDSC would not specify any source or destination TTP (i.e., it would leave the source, destination, src-tp-id and dst- tp-id attributes empty) for the tunnel and it would use the explicit-route-object/route-object-include-exclude list to specify the ingress and egress links for each path of the Transit Tunnel Segment. 2. Each PNC provides to the MDSC, at the MPI, the list of available timeslots on the inter-domain links using the TE Topology YANG model and OTN Topology augmentation. The TE Topology YANG model in [TE-TOPO] is being updated to report the label set information. This document is also making the following assumptions, still to be validated with CCAMP WG: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 1. The topology information for the Ethernet access links is modelled using the YANG model defined in [CLIENT-TOPO]. 2. The service information for Ethernet and other OTN client layer services are modelled using the YANG model defined in [Client- Signal]. Finally, the Network Elements (NEs) described in the scenarios used in document are using ODU switching. It is assumed that the ODU links are pre-configured and using mechanisms such as WDM wavelength, which are outside the scope of this document. 2. Terminology Domain: defined as a collection of network elements within a common realm of address space or path computation responsibility [RFC5151] E-LINE: Ethernet Line EPL: Ethernet Private Line EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line OTN: Optical Transport Network Service: A service in the context of this document can be considered as some form of connectivity between customer sites across the network operator's network [RFC8309] Service Model: As described in [RFC8309] it describes a service and the parameters of the service in a portable way that can be used uniformly and independent of the equipment and operating environment. UNI: User Network Interface MDSC: Multi-Domain Service Coordinator CNC: Customer Network Controller PNC: Provisioning Network Controller MAC Bridging: Virtual LANs (VLANs) on IEEE 802.3 Ethernet network Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 3. Conventions used in this document 3.1. Topology and traffic flow processing The traffic flow between different nodes is specified as an ordered list of nodes, separated with commas, indicating within the brackets the processing within each node: (){, ()} The order represents the order of traffic flow being forwarded through the network. The processing can be either an adaptation of a client layer into a server layer "(client -> server)" or switching at a given layer "([switching])". Multi-layer switching is indicated by two layer switching with client/server adaptation: "([client] -> [server])". For example, the following traffic flow: R1 ([PKT] -> ODU2), S3 ([ODU2]), S5 ([ODU2]), S6 ([ODU2]), R3 (ODU2 -> [PKT]) Node R1 is switching at the packet (PKT) layer and mapping packets into an ODU2 before transmission to node S3. Nodes S3, S5 and S6 are switching at the ODU2 layer: S3 sends the ODU2 traffic to S5 which then sends it to S6 which finally sends to R3. Node R3 terminates the ODU2 from S6 before switching at the packet (PKT) layer. The paths of working and protection transport entities are specified as an ordered list of nodes, separated with commas: {, } The order represents the order of traffic flow being forwarded through the network in the forward direction. In case of bidirectional paths, the forward and backward directions are selected arbitrarily, but the convention is consistent between working/protection path pairs as well as across multiple domains. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 3.2. JSON code This document provides some detailed JSON code examples to describe how the YANG models being developed by IETF (TEAS and CCAMP WG in particular) can be used. The examples are provided using JSON because JSON code is easier for humans to read and write. Different objects need to have an identifier. The convention used to create mnemonic identifiers is to use the object name (e.g., S3 for node S3), followed by its type (e.g., NODE), separated by an "-", followed by "-ID". For example, the mnemonic identifier for node S3 would be S3-NODE-ID. JSON language does not support the insertion of comments that have been instead found to be useful when writing the examples. This document will insert comments into the JSON code as JSON name/value pair with the JSON name string starting with the "//" characters. For example, when describing the example of a TE Topology instance representing the ODU Abstract Topology exposed by the Transport PNC, the following comment has been added to the JSON code: "// comment": "ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI", The JSON code examples provided in this document have been validated against the YANG models following the validation process described in Appendix A, which would not consider the comments. In order to have successful validation of the examples, some numbering scheme has been defined to assign identifiers to the different entities which would pass the syntax checks. In that case, to simplify the reading, another JSON name/value pair formatted as a comment and using the mnemonic identifiers is also provided. For example, the identifier of node S3 (S3-NODE-ID) has been assumed to be "10.0.0.3" and would be shown in the JSON code example using the two JSON name/value pair: "// te-node-id": "S3-NODE-ID", "te-node-id": "10.0.0.3", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 The first JSON name/value pair will be automatically removed in the first step of the validation process while the second JSON name/value pair will be validated against the YANG model definitions. 4. Scenarios Description 4.1. Reference Network The physical topology of the reference network is shown in Figure 1. It represents an OTN network composed of three transport network domains providing transport services to an IP customer network through eight access links: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 ........................ .......... : : : : Network domain 1 : ............. Customer: : : : : domain : : S1 -------+ : : Network : : : / \ : : domain 3 : .......... R1 ------- S3 ----- S4 \ : : : : : : \ \ S2 --------+ : :Customer : : \ \ | : : \ : : domain : : S5 \ | : : \ : : R2 ------+ / \ \ | : : S31 --------- R7 : : \ / \ \ | : : / \ : : : : S6 ---- S7 ---- S8 ------ S32 S33 ------ R8 : : / | | : : / \ / : :....... R3 ------+ | | : :/ S34 : : : :..........|.......|...: / / : : ........: | | /:.../.......: : | | / / : ...........|.......|..../..../... : : | | / / : .............. : Network | | / / : : : domain 2 | | / / : :Customer : S11 ---- S12 / : : domain : / | \ / : : : S13 S14 | S15 ------------- R4 : | \ / \ | \ : : : | S16 \ | \ : : : | / S17 -- S18 --------- R5 : | / \ / : : : S19 ---- S20 ---- S21 ------------ R6 : : : :...............................: :............. Figure 1 - Reference network This document assumes that all the transport network switching nodes Si are OTN switching nodes capable of switching in the electrical domain (ODU switching) and that all the Si-Sj OTN links within the transport network (intra-domain or inter-domain) are 100G links while the access Ri-Sj links are 10G links. Different technologies can be used at the access links (e.g., Ethernet, STM-n, OTN). It is also assumed that, within the transport network, the physical/optical interconnections supporting the Si-Sj OTN links (up Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 to the OTU4 trail), are pre-configured using mechanisms which are outside the scope of this document and are not exposed at the MPIs to the MDSC. The transport domain control architecture, shown in Figure 2, follows the ACTN architecture and framework document [RFC8453], and functional components: -------------- | | | CNC | | | -------------- | ....................|....................... CMI | ---------------- | | | MDSC | | | ---------------- / | \ / | \ ............../.....|......\................ MPIs / | \ / ---------- \ / | PNC2 | \ / ---------- \ ---------- | \ | PNC1 | ----- \ ---------- ( ) ---------- | ( ) | PNC3 | ----- ( Network ) ---------- ( ) ( Domain 2 ) | ( ) ( ) ----- ( Network ) ( ) ( ) ( Domain 1 ) ----- ( ) ( ) ( Network ) ( ) ( Domain 3 ) ----- ( ) ( ) ----- Figure 2 - Controlling Hierarchy Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 The ACTN framework facilitates the detachment of the network and service control from the underlying technology and helps the customer express the network as desired by business needs. Therefore, care must be taken to keep a minimal dependency on the CMI (or no dependency at all) with respect to the network domain technologies. The MPI instead requires some specialization according to the domain technology. This document assumes that the CNC controls the customer IP network and requests, at the CMI, transport connectivity between IP routers. The MDSC coordinates, via three MPIs, the control of a multi-domain transport network through three PNCs. The control interfaces within the scope of this document are the three MPIs, while the control interface(s) between the CNC and the IP routers is outside the scope of this document. It is also assumed that the CMI allows the CNC to provide all the information that is required by the MDSC to properly configure the transport connectivity requested by the customer. In case the CNC requests transport connectivity between IP routers attached to different transport domains (e.g., between R1 and R5), the MDSC coordinates the setup of a multi-domain end-to-end OTN connection across multiple PNCs (e.g., PNC1, PNC2 and PNC3 in in Figure 2) as well as the configuration of the client signal mapping at the PNCs controlling the edge domains (e.g., PNC1 and PNC2 in Figure 2). 4.1.1. Single-Domain Scenario In case the CNC requests transport connectivity between IP routers attached to the same transport domain (e.g., between R1 and R3 in Figure 1), the MDSC can request the PNC controlling that domain (e.g., PNC1 in Figure 2) to setup an intra-domain end-to-end OTN connection and configure the client signal mapping. Alternatively, the MDSC can just configure the client signal mapping and let the PNC take decisions about how to implement the service (e.g., setting up the intra-domain end-to-end OTN connection). 4.2. Topology Abstractions Abstraction provides a selective method for representing connectivity information within a domain. There are multiple methods to abstract a Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 network topology. This document assumes the abstraction method defined in [RFC7926]: "Abstraction is the process of applying the policy to the available TE information within a domain, to produce selective information that represents the potential ability to connect across the domain. Thus, abstraction does not necessarily offer all possible connectivity options, but presents a general view of potential connectivity according to the policies that determine how the domain's administrator wants to allow the domain resources to be used." [RFC8453] Provides the context of topology abstraction in the ACTN architecture and discusses a few alternatives for the abstraction methods for both packet and optical networks. This is an important consideration since the choice of the abstraction method impacts protocol design and the information it carries. According to [RFC8453], there are three types of topology: o White topology: This is a case where the PNC provides the actual network topology to the MDSC without any hiding or filtering. In this case, the MDSC has the full knowledge of the underlying network topology; o Black topology: The entire domain network is abstracted as a single virtual node with the access/egress links without disclosing any node internal connectivity information; o Grey topology: This abstraction level is between black topology and white topology from a granularity point of view. This is an abstraction of TE tunnels for all pairs of border nodes. We may further differentiate from a perspective of how to abstract internal TE resources between the pairs of border nodes: - Grey topology type A: border nodes with TE links between them in a full mesh fashion; - Grey topology type B: border nodes with some internal abstracted nodes and abstracted links. Each PNC should provide the MDSC with a topology abstraction of the domain's network topology. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Each PNC provides topology abstraction of its own domain topology independently from each other, and therefore it is possible that different PNCs provide different types of topology abstractions. The MPI operates on the abstract topology regardless of, and independently from, the type of abstraction provided by the PNC. To analyze how the MPI operates on abstract topologies independently from the topology abstraction provided by each PNC and, therefore, that different PNCs can provide different topology abstractions, that the following examples are assumed: o PNC1 provides a black topology abstraction which exposes at MPI1 a single virtual node (representing the whole network domain 1). o PNC2 provides a black topology abstraction which exposes at MPI2 a single virtual node (representing the whole network domain 2). o PNC3 provides a white topology abstraction which exposes at MPI3 all the physical nodes and links within network domain 3. The MDSC should be capable of stitching together each abstracted topology to build its own view of the multi-domain network topology. The process may require suitable oversight, including administrative configuration and trust models, but this is out of scope for this document. The MDSC can also provide topology abstraction of its own view of the multi-domain network topology at its CMIs depending on the customers' needs: it can provide different types of topology abstractions at different CMIs. 4.3. Service Configuration In the following scenarios, it is assumed that the CNC is capable of requesting service connectivity from the MDSC to support IP routers connectivity. The type of services could depend on the type of physical links (e.g. OTN link, ETH link or SDH link) between the routers and transport network. The control of different adaptations inside IP routers, Ri (PKT -> foo) and Rj (foo -> PKT), are assumed to be performed by means that Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 are not under the control of, and not visible to, the MDSC nor to the PNCs. Therefore, these mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. It is just assumed that the CNC is capable of requesting the proper configuration of the different adaptation functions inside the customer's IP routers, by means which are outside the scope of this document. 4.3.1. ODU Transit The physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network can be 10G OTN links. In this case, it is assumed that the physical/optical interconnections below the ODU layer (up to the OTU2 trail) are pre-configured using mechanisms which are outside the scope of this document and not exposed at the MPIs between the PNCs and the MDSC. For simplicity of the description, it is also assumed that these interfaces are not channelized (i.e., they can only support one ODU2). To setup a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R5, an ODU2 end-to-end connection needs be created in the data plane between R1 and R5, through transport nodes S3, S1, S2, S31, S33, S34, S15 and S18 which belong to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request): R1 ([PKT] -> ODU2), S3 ([ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2]), S33 ([ODU2]), S34 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2]), R5 (ODU2 -> [PKT]) It is assumed that, at the CMI, the CNC requests, using mechanisms which are outside the scope of this document, the MDSC to setup of an ODU2 transit service between the access links on S3 and S8 and that the MDSC understands that it shall setup an ODU2 segment connection between the access links on S3 and S18, which belongs to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request). To setup of a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R3, an ODU2 end-to-end connection needs are created in the data plane between R1 and R3, through transport nodes S3, S5 and S6 which belong to the same PNC domain (single-domain service request): R1 ([PKT] -> ODU2), S3 ([ODU2]), S5 ([ODU2]), S6 ([ODU2]), R3 (ODU2 -> [PKT]) Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Since the CNC is not aware of the transport network controlling hierarchy, the mechanisms used by the CNC to request at the CMI the MDSC to setup an ODU2 transit service are independent on whether the service request is single-domain or multi-domain. Based on the assumption above, the MDSC understands that it shall setup an ODU2 segment connection between the access links on S3 and S6, which belong to the same PNC domain (single-domain service request) and it can just pass the request at the MPI to PNC1 to setup a single-domain ODU2 segment connection between its access links on S3 and S6. 4.3.2. EPL over ODU The physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network can be Ethernet physical links. To setup a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R5, an EPL service needs to be created between R1 and R5, supported by an ODU2 end-to-end connection in the data plane between transport nodes S3 and S18, through transport nodes S1, S2, S31, S33, S34 and S15, which belong to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request: R1 ([PKT] -> ETH), S3 (ETH -> [ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2]), S33 ([ODU2]), S34 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2] -> ETH), R5 (ETH -> [PKT]) Based on the assumptions described in section 4.3.1, the CNC requests at the CMI the MDSC to setup an EPL service between the access links on S3 and S8 and the MDSC understands that it shall setup an ODU2 end-to-end connection between nodes S3 and S18, which belongs to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request). The MDSC also understands how the adaptation functions inside nodes S3 and S18 (i.e., S3 (ETH -> [ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2] -> ETH), S18 (ETH -> [ODU2]) and S3 ([ODU2] -> ETH)) should be configured. To setup a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R3, an EPL service needs to be created between R1 and R3, supported by an ODU2 end-to-end connection in the data plane between transport nodes S3 and S6, through the transport node S5, which belong to the same PNC domain (single-domain service request): R1 ([PKT] -> ETH), S3 (ETH -> [ODU2]), S5 ([ODU2]), S6 ([ODU2] -> ETH), R3 (ETH-> [PKT]) Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 As described in section 4.3.1, the mechanisms used by the CNC at the CMI are independent on whether the service request is single-domain service or multi-domain. Based on the assumption above, the MDSC understands that it shall setup an EPL service between the access links on S3 and S6, which belong to the same PNC domain (single-domain service request) and it can just pass the request at the MPI to PNC1 to setup a single-domain EPL service its access links on S3 and S6. In this case, PNC1 can take care of setting up the single-domain ODU2 end-to-end connection between nodes S3 and S6 as well as of configuring the adaptation functions on these edge nodes. 4.3.3. Other OTN Clients Services [ITU-T G.709] defines mappings of different client layers into ODU. Most of them are used to provide Private Line services over an OTN transport network supporting a variety of types of physical access links (e.g., Ethernet, SDH STM-N, Fibre Channel, InfiniBand, etc.). The physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network can be any of these types. In order to setup a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R5 using, for example SDH physical links between the IP routers and the transport network, an STM-64 Private Line service needs to be created between R1 and R5, supported by an ODU2 end-to-end connection in the data plane between transport nodes S3 and S18, through transport nodes S1, S2, S31, S33, S34 and S15, which belong to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request): R1 ([PKT] -> STM-64), S3 (STM-64 -> [ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2]), S33 ([ODU2]), S34 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2] -> STM-64), R5 (STM-64 -> [PKT]) Based on the assumptions described in section 4.3.1, the CNC requests the CMI the MDSC to setup an STM-64 Private Line service between the access links on S3 and S8 and the MDSC understands what to do as described in section 4.3.2 (multi-domain service request). To setup a 10Gb IP link between R1 and R3), an STM-64 Private Line service needs to be created between R1 and R3 (single-domain service request): Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 R1 ([PKT] -> STM-64), S3 (STM-64 -> [ODU2]), S5 ([ODU2]), S6 ([ODU2] -> STM-64), R3 (STM-64 -> [PKT]) As described in section 4.3.1, the mechanisms used by the CNC at the CMI are independent on whether the service request is single-domain or multi-domain. As described in section 4.3.2, the MDSC can just pass the request at the MPI to PNC1 to setup a single-domain STM-64 Private Line service between it access links on S3 and S6. 4.3.4. EVPL over ODU When the physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network are Ethernet physical links, it is also possible that different Ethernet services (e.g., EVPL) can share the same physical access link using different VLANs. To setup two 1Gb IP links between R1 to R3 and between R1 and R5, two EVPL services need to be created, supported by two ODU0 end-to-end connections in the data plane respectively between transport nodes S3 and S6, through transport node S5, which belong ot the same PNC domain (single-domain service request) and between transport nodes S3 and S18, through transport nodes S1, S2, S31, S33, S34 and S15, which belong to different PNC domains (multi-domain service request): R1 ([PKT] -> VLAN), S3 (VLAN -> [ODU0]), S1 ([ODU0]), S2 ([ODU0]), S31 ([ODU0]), S33 ([ODU0]), S34 ([ODU0]), S15 ([ODU0]), S18 ([ODU0] -> VLAN), R5 (VLAN -> [PKT]) R1 ([PKT] -> VLAN), S3 (VLAN -> [ODU0]), S5 ([ODU0]), S6 ([ODU0] -> VLAN), R3 (VLAN -> [PKT]) Since the two EVPL services are sharing the same Ethernet physical link between R1 and S3, different VLAN IDs are associated with different EVPL services: for example, VLAN IDs 10 and 20 respectively. Based on the assumptions described in section 4.3.1, the CNC requests at the CMI the MDSC to setup these EVPL services and the MDSC understands what to do as described in section 4.3.2. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 4.3.5. EVPLAN and EVPTree Services When the physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network are Ethernet links, multipoint Ethernet services (e.g., EPLAN and EPTree) can also be supported. It is also possible that multiple Ethernet services (e.g., EVPL, EVPLAN and EVPTree) share the same physical link using different VLANs. Note - it is assumed that EPLAN and EPTree services can be supported by configuring EVPLAN and EVPTree with port mapping. Since this EVPLAN/EVPTree service can share the same Ethernet physical links between IP routers and transport nodes (e.g., with the EVPL services described in section 4.3.4), a different VLAN ID (e.g., 30) can be associated with this EVPLAN/EVPTree service. In order to setup an IP subnet between R1, R2, R3 and R5, an EVPLAN/EVPTree service needs to be created, supported by two ODUflex end-to-end connections respectively between S3 and S6, crossing transport node S5, and between S3 and S18, crossing transport nodes S1, S2, S31, S33, S34 and S15 which belong to different PNC domains. Some MAC Bridging capabilities are also required on some nodes at the edge of the transport network: for example, Ethernet Bridging capabilities can be configured in nodes S3 and S6: o MAC Bridging in node S3 is needed to select, based on the MAC Destination Address, whether received Ethernet frames should be forwarded to R1 or to the ODUflex terminating on node S6 or to the other ODUflex terminating on node S18; o MAC bridging function in node S6 is needed to select, based on the MAC Destination Address, whether received Ethernet frames should be sent to R2 or to R3 or to the ODUflex terminating on node S3. In order to support an EVPTree service instead of an EVPLAN, additional configuration of the Ethernet Bridging capabilities on the nodes at the edge of the transport network is required. The traffic flows between R1 and R3, between R3 and R5 and between R1 and R5 can be summarized as: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 R1 ([PKT] -> VLAN), S3 (VLAN -> [MAC] -> [ODUflex]), S5 ([ODUflex]), S6 ([ODUflex] -> [MAC] -> VLAN), R3 (VLAN -> [PKT]) R3 ([PKT] -> VLAN), S6 (VLAN -> [MAC] -> [ODUflex]), S5 ([ODUflex]), S3 ([ODUflex] -> [MAC] -> [ODUflex]), S1 ([ODUflex]), S2 ([ODUflex]), S31 ([ODUflex]), S33 ([ODUflex]), S34 ([ODUflex]), S15 ([ODUflex]), S18 ([ODUflex] -> VLAN), R5 (VLAN -> [PKT]) R1 ([PKT] -> VLAN), S3 (VLAN -> [MAC] -> [ODUflex]), S1 ([ODUflex]), S2 ([ODUflex]), S31 ([ODUflex]), S33 ([ODUflex]), S34 ([ODUflex]), S15 ([ODUflex]), S18 ([ODUflex] -> VLAN), R5 (VLAN -> [PKT]) As described in section 4.3.2, it is assumed that the CNC is capable, via the CMI, to request the setup of this EVPLAN/EVPTree service, providing all the information that the MDSC needs to understand that it need to request PNC1 to setup an ODUflex connection between nodes S3 and S6 (single-domain service request) and it also needs to coordinate the setup of a multi-domain ODUflex connection between nodes S3 and S16 as well as the MAC bridging and the adaptation functions on these edge nodes. In case the CNC needs the setup of an EVPLAN/EVPTree service only between R1, R2 and R3 (single-domain service request), it would request the setup of this service in the same way as before and the information provided at the CMI is sufficient for the MDSC to understand that this is a single-domain service request. The MDSC can then just request PNC1 to setup a single-domain EVPLAN/EVPTree service between nodes S3 and S6. PNC1 can take care of setting up the single-domain ODUflex end-to-end connection between nodes S3 and S6 as well as of configuring the MAC bridging and the adaptation functions on these edge nodes. 4.3.6. Dynamic Service Configuration Given the service established in the previous sections, there is a demand for an update of some service characteristics. A straightforward approach would be terminate the current service and replace with a new one. Another more advanced approach would be a dynamic configuration, in which case there will be no interruption for the connection. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 An example application would be updating the SLA information for a certain connection. For example, an ODU transit connection is set up according to section 4.3.1, with the corresponding SLA level of 'no protection'. After the establishment of this connection, the user would like to enhance this service by providing a restoration after potential failure, and a request is generated on the CMI. In this case, after receiving the request, the MDSC would need to send an update message to the PNC, changing the SLA parameters in TE Tunnel model. Then the connection characteristic would be changed by PNC, and a notification would be sent to MDSC for acknowledgement. 4.4. Multi-function Access Links Some physical links interconnecting the IP routers and the transport network can be configured in different modes, e.g., as OTU2 or STM-64 or 10GE. This configuration can be done a-priori by means outside the scope of this document. In this case, these links will appear at the MPI either as an ODU Link or as an STM-64 Link or as a 10GE Link (depending on the a-priori configuration) and will be controlled at the MPI as discussed in section 4.3. It is also possible not to configure these links a-priori and give the control to the MPI to decide, based on the service configuration, how to configure it. For example, if the physical link between R1 and S3 is a multi- functional access link while the physical links between R7 and S31 and between R5 and S18 are STM-64 and 10GE physical links respectively, it is possible to configure either an STM-64 Private Line service between R1 and R7 or an EPL service between R1 and R5. The traffic flow between R1 and R7 can be summarized as: R1 ([PKT] -> STM-64), S3 (STM-64 -> [ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2] -> STM-64), R3 (STM-64 -> [PKT]) The traffic flow between R1 and R5 can be summarized as: R1 ([PKT] -> ETH), S3 (ETH -> [ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2]), S33 ([ODU2]), S34 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2] -> ETH), R5 (ETH -> [PKT]) Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 As described in section 4.3.2, it is assumed that the CNC is capable, via the CMI, to request the setup either an STM-64 Private Line service between R1 and R7 or an EPL service between R1 and R5, providing all the information that the MDSC needs to understand that it needs to coordinate the setup of a multi-domain ODU2 connection, either between nodes S3 and S31, or between nodes S3 and S18, as well as the adaptation functions on these edge nodes, and in particular whether the multi-function access link on between R1 and S3 should operate as an STM-64 or as a 10GE link. 4.5. Protection and Restoration Configuration Protection switching provides a pre-allocated survivability mechanism, typically provided via linear protection methods and would be configured to operate as 1+1 unidirectional (the most common OTN protection method), 1+1 bidirectional or 1:n bidirectional. This ensures fast and simple service survivability. Restoration methods would provide the capability to reroute and restore connectivity traffic around network faults, without the network penalty imposed with dedicated 1+1 protection schemes. This section describes only services which are protected with linear protection and with dynamic restoration. The MDSC needs to be capable of coordinating different PNCs to configure protection switching when requesting the setup of the protected connectivity services described in section 4.3. Since in these service examples, switching within the transport network domain is performed only in the OTN ODU layer. Also protection switching within the transport network domain can only be provided at the OTN ODU layer. 4.5.1. Linear Protection (end-to-end) In order to protect any service defined in section 4.3 from failures within the OTN multi-domain transport network, the MDSC should be capable of coordinating different PNCs to configure and control OTN linear protection in the data plane between nodes S3 and node S18. It is assumed that the OTN linear protection is configured to with 1+1 unidirectional protection switching type, as defined in [ITU-T G.808.1] and [ITU-T G.873.1], as well as in [RFC4427]. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 In these scenarios, a working transport entity and a protection transport entity, as defined in [ITU-T G.808.1], (or a working LSP and a protection LSP, as defined in [RFC4427]) should be configured in the data plane. Two cases can be considered: o In one case, the working and protection transport entities pass through the same PNC domains: Working transport entity: S3, S1, S2, S31, S33, S34, S15, S18 Protection transport entity: S3, S4, S8, S32, S12, S17, S18 o In another case, the working and protection transport entities can pass through different PNC domains: Working transport entity: S3, S5, S7, S11, S12, S17, S18 Protection transport entity: S3, S1, S2, S31, S33, S34, S15, S18 The PNCs should be capable to report to the MDSC which is the active transport entity, as defined in [ITU-T G.808.1], in the data plane. Given the fast dynamic of protection switching operations in the data plane (50ms recovery time), this reporting is not expected to be in real-time. It is also worth noting that with unidirectional protection switching, e.g., 1+1 unidirectional protection switching, the active transport entity may be different in the two directions. 4.5.2. Segmented Protection To protect any service defined in section 4.3 from failures within the OTN multi-domain transport network, the MDSC should be capable of Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 requesting each PNC to configure OTN intra-domain protection when requesting the setup of the ODU2 data plane connection segment. If PNC1 provides linear protection, the working and protection transport entities could be: Working transport entity: S3, S1, S2 Protection transport entity: S3, S4, S8, S2 If PNC2 provides linear protection, the working and protection transport entities could be: Working transport entity: S15, S18 Protection transport entity: S15, S12, S17, S18 If PNC3 provides linear protection, the working and protection transport entities could be: Working transport entity: S31, S33, S34 Protection transport entity: S31, S32, S34 4.5.3. End-to-End Dynamic restoration To restore any service defined in section 4.3 from failures within the OTN multi-domain transport network, the MDSC should be capable of coordinating different PNCs to configure and control OTN end-to-end dynamic Restoration in the data plane between nodes S3 and node S18. For example, the MDSC can request the PNC1, PNC2 and PNC3 to create a service with no-protection, MDSC set the end-to-end service with the dynamic restoration. Working transport entity: S3, S1, S2, S31, S33, S34, S15, S18 When a link failure between S1 and s2 occurred in network domain 1, PNC1 does not restore the tunnel and send the alarm notification to the MDSC, MDSC will perform the end-to-end restoration. Restored transport entity: S3, S4, S8, S12, S15, S18 Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 4.5.4. Segmented Dynamic Restoration To restore any service defined in section 4.3 from failures within the OTN multi-domain transport network, the MDSC should be capable of coordinating different PNCs to configure and control OTN segmented dynamic Restoration in the data plane between nodes S3 and node S18. Working transport entity: S3, S1, S2, S31, S33, S34, S15, S18 When a link failure between S1 and s2 occurred in network domain 1, PNC1 will restore the tunnel and send the alarm or tunnel update notification to the MDSC, MDSC will update the restored tunnel. Restored transport entity: S3, S4, S8, S2 S31, S33, S34, S15, S18 When a link failure between network domain 1 and network domain 2 occurred, PNC1 and PNC2 will send the alarm notification to the MDSC, MDSC will update the restored tunnel. Restored transport entity: S3, S4, S8, S12, S15, S18 In order to improve the efficiency of recovery, the controller can establish a recovery path in a concurrent way. When the recovery fails in one domain or one network element, the rollback operation should be supported. The creation of the recovery path by the controller can use the method of "make-before-break", in order to reduce the impact of the recovery operation on the services. 4.6. Service Modification and Deletion To be discussed in future versions of this document. 4.7. Notification To realize the topology update, service update and restoration function, following notification type should be supported. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 1. Object create 2. Object delete 3. Object state change 4. Alarm Because there are three types of topology abstraction type defined in section 4.2, the notification should also be abstracted. The PNC and MDSC should coordinate together to determine the notification policy, such as when an intra-domain alarm occurred, the PNC may not report the alarm but the service state change notification to the MDSC. 4.8. Path Computation with Constraint It is possible to have constraint during path computation procedure; typical cases include IRO/XRO and so on. This information is carried in the TE Tunnel model and used when there is a request with constraint. Consider the example in section 4.3.1. , the request can be a Tunnel from R1 to R5 with an IRO from S2 to S31, then qualified feedback would become: R1 ([PKT] -> ODU2), S3 ([ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S31 ([ODU2]), S33 ([ODU2]), S34 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2]), R5 (ODU2 -> [PKT]) If the request covers the IRO from S8 to S12, then the above path would not be qualified, while a possible computation result may be: R1 ([PKT] -> ODU2), S3 ([ODU2]), S1 ([ODU2]), S2 ([ODU2]), S8 ([ODU2]), S12 ([ODU2]), S15 ([ODU2]), S18 ([ODU2]), R5 (ODU2 -> [PKT]) Similarly, the XRO can be represented by the TE tunnel model as well. When there is a technology specific network (e.g., OTN), the corresponding technology (OTN) model should also be used to specify the tunnel information on MPI, with the constraint included in TE Tunnel model. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 5. YANG Model Analysis This section provides a high-level overview of how IETF YANG models can be used at the MPIs, between the MDSC and the PNCs, to support the scenarios described in section 4. Section 5.1 describes the different topology abstractions provided to the MDSC by each PNC via its own MPI. Section 5.2 describes how the MDSC can coordinate different requests to different PNCs, via their own MPIs, to setup the different services described in section 4.3. Section 5.3 describes how the protection scenarios can be deployed, including end-to-end protection and segment protection, for both intra-domain and inter-domain scenario. 5.1. YANG Models for Topology Abstraction Each PNC reports its respective abstract topology to the MDSC, as described in section 4.2. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 5.1.1. Domain 1 Black Topology Abstraction PNC1 provides the required black topology abstraction, as described in section 4.2, to expose to the MDSC, at MPI1, one TE Topology instance for the ODU layer (MPI1 OTN Topology) containing only one abstract TE node (i.e., AN1) and only inter-domain and access abstract TE links (which represent the inter-domain and access physical links), as shown in Figure 3 below. ................................... : : : +-----------------+ : : | | : (R1)- - --------| |-------- - -(S31) : AN1-1 | | AN1-2 : : | | : (R2)- - --------| | : : AN1-3 | AN1 | : : | | : (R3)- - --------| |-------- - -(S32) : AN1-7 | | AN1-4 : : | | : : +-----------------+ : : | | : : AN1-6 | | AN1-5 : :..........|..........|...........: | | (S11) (S12) Figure 3 - Abstract Topology exposed at MPI1 (MPI1 OTN Topology) As described in section 4.1, it is assumed that the physical links between the physical nodes are pre-configured and therefore PNC1 exports at MPI1 one abstract TE Link, within the MPI1 OTN topology, for each OTU2 or OTU4 trail which support an abstract TE link in the MPI1 ODU Topology. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 .................................. : : : ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI : : Gotham City Area : : Metro Transport Network : : : : +----+ +----+ : : | |S1-1 | |S2-1: : | S1 |--------| S2 |----- - -(S31) : +----+ S2-2+----+ : : S1-2/ |S2-3 : : S3-2/ Robinson Park | : : +----+ +----+ | : : | |3 1| | | : (R1)- - -----| S3 |---| S4 | | : :S3-1+----+ +----+ | : : S3-4 \ \S4-2 | : : \S5-1 \ | : : +----+ \ | : : | | \S8-3| : : | S5 | \ | : : +----+ Metro \ |S8-2 : (R2)- - ------ 2/ E \3 Main \ | : :S6-1 \ /3 a E \1 Ring \| : : +----+s-n+----+ +----+ : : | |t d| | | |S8-1: : | S6 |---| S7 |---| S8 |----- - -(S32) : +----+4 2+----+3 4+----+ : : / | | : (R3)- - ------ S7-4 | | S8-5 : :S6-2 | | : :...............|........|.......: | | (S11) (S12) Figure 4 - Physical Topology discovered by PNC1 LTP mapping table: AN1-1 -> S3-1 AN1-2 -> S2-1 Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 AN1-3 -> S6-1 AN1-4 -> S8-1 AN1-5 -> S8-5 AN1-6 -> S7-4 AN1-7 -> S6-2 Appendix B.1.1 provides the detailed JSON code example ("mpi1-otn- topology.json") describing how this ODU Topology is reported by the PNC, using the [TE-TOPO] and [OTN-TOPO] YANG models at MPI1. It is worth noting that this JSON code example does not provide all the attributes defined in the relevant YANG models: o YANG attributes which are outside the scope of this document are not shown o The attributes describing the label restrictions are also not shown to simplify the JSON code example o The comments describing the rationale for not including some attributes in this JSON code example even if in the scope of this document are identified with the prefix "// __COMMENT__" and included only in the first object instance (e.g., in the Access Link from the AN1-1 description or in the AN1-1 LTP description) 5.1.2. Domain 2 Black Topology Abstraction PNC2 provides the required black topology abstraction, as described in section 4.2, to expose to the MDSC, at MPI2, one TE Topology instance for the ODU layer (MPI2 OTN Topology) containing only one abstract node (i.e., AN2) and only inter-domain and access abstract TE links (which represent the inter-domain and access physical links). 5.1.3. Domain 3 White Topology Abstraction PNC3 provides the required white topology abstraction, as described in section 4.2, to expose to the MDSC, at MPI3, one TE Topology instance for the ODU layer (MPI3 OTN Topology) containing one abstract TE node for each physical node and one abstract TE link for Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 each physical link (internal links, inter-domain links or access links). 5.1.4. Multi-domain Topology Stitching As assumed at the beginning of this section, MDSC does not have any knowledge of the topologies of each domain until each PNC reports its own abstraction topology, so the MDSC needs to merge together the abstract topologies provided by different PNCs, at the MPIs, to build its own topology view, as described in section 4.3 of [TE-TOPO]. Given the topologies reported from multiple PNCs, the MDSC need to stitch the multi-domain topology and obtain the full map of topology. The topology of each domain may be in an abstracted shape (refer to section 5.2 of [RFC8453] for a different level of abstraction), while the inter-domain link information must be complete and fully configured by the MDSC. The inter-domain link information is reported to the MDSC by the two PNCs, controlling the two ends of the inter-domain link. The MDSC needs to understand how to "stitch" together these inter- domain links. One possibility is to use the plug-id information, defined in [TE- TOPO]: two inter-domain links reporting the same plug-id value can be merged as a single intra-domain link within any MDSC native topology. The value of the reported plug-id information can be either assigned by a central network authority, and configured within the two PNC domains, or it can be discovered using automatic discovery mechanisms (e.g., LMP-based, as defined in [RFC6898]). In case the plug-id values are assigned by a central authority, it is under the central authority responsibility to assign unique values. In case the plug-id values are automatically discovered, the information discovered by the automatic discovery mechanisms needs to be encoded as a bit string within the plug-id value. This encoding is implementation specific, but the encoding rules need to be consistent across all the PNCs. In case of co-existence within the same network of multiple sources for the plug-id (e.g., central authority and automatic discovery or even different automatic discovery mechanisms), it is needed that the Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 plug-id namespace is partitioned to avoid that different sources assign the same plug-id value to different inter-domain link. The encoding of the plug-id namespace within the plug-id value is implementation specific but needs to be consistent across all the PNCs. Another possibility is to pre-configure, either in the adjacent PNCs or in the MDSC, the association between the inter-domain link identifiers (topology-id, node-id and tp-id) assigned by the two adjacent PNCs to the same inter-domain link. This last scenario requires further investigation and will be discussed in a future version of this document. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 ........................ : : : Network domain 1 : ............. : Grey Topology : : : : Abstraction : : Network : : : : domain 3 : (R1)- - -------+ : : (White) : : \ +--------------+ : : \ / : : \ : : \ / : : \ : (R2)- - --------- AN1 --+ : : S31 ---- - (R7) : /|\ \ : : / \ : : : / | \ +--------- S32 S33 - - (R8) : / | \ : :/ \ / : (R3)- - -------+ | +---+ : / S34 : :..........|.......|...: /: / : | | / :../........: | | / / ...........|.......|.../..../.... : | | / / : : Network | + / / : : domain 2 | / / / : : | / / / : : | + / +--+ : : | |/ / +--- - -(R4) : Black +--- AN2 ---------+ : : Topology | | : : Abstraction | +-------------- - -(R5) : | : : +---------------- - -(R6) : : :...............................: Figure 5 - Multi-domain Abstract Topology discovered by MDSC 5.1.5. Access Links Access links in Figure 3 are shown as ODU Links: the modeling of the access links for other access technologies is currently an open issue. The modeling of the access link in case of non-ODU access technology has also an impact on the need to model ODU TTPs and layer transition Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 33] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 capabilities on the edge nodes (e.g., nodes S2, S3, S6 and S8 in Figure 3). If, for example, the physical NE S6 is implemented in a "pizza box", the data plane would have only set of ODU termination resources (where up to 2xODU4, 4xODU3, 20xODU2, 80xODU1, 160xODU0 and 160xODUflex can be terminated). The traffic coming from each of the 10GE access links can be mapped into any of these ODU terminations. Instead if, for example, the physical NE S6 can be implemented as a multi-board system where access links reside on different/dedicated access cards with a separated set of ODU termination resources (where up to 1xODU4, 2xODU3, 10xODU2, 40xODU1, 80xODU0 and 80xODUflex for each resource can be terminated). The traffic coming from one 10GE access links can be mapped only into the ODU terminations which reside on the same access card. The more generic implementation option for a physical NE (e.g., S6) would be the case is of a multi-board system with multiple access cards with separated sets of access links and ODU termination resources (where up to 1xODU4, 2xODU3, 10xODU2, 40xODU1, 80xODU0 and 80xODUflex for each resource can be terminated). The traffic coming from each of the 10GE access links on one access card can be mapped only into any of the ODU terminations which reside on the same access card. In the last two cases, only the ODUs terminated on the same access card where the access links reside can carry the traffic coming from that 10GE access link. Terminated ODUs can instead be sent to any of the OTU4 interfaces In all these cases, terminated ODUs can be sent to any of the OTU4 interfaces assuming the implementation is based on a non-blocking ODU cross-connect. If the access links are reported via MPI in some, still to be defined, client topology, it is possible to report each set of ODU termination resources as an ODU TTP within the ODU Topology of Figure 3 and to use either the inter-layer lock-id or the transitional link, as described in sections 3.4 and 3.10 of [TE-TOPO], to correlate the access links, in the client topology, with the ODU TTPs, in the OTN topology, to which access link are connected to. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 34] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 5.2. YANG Models for Service Configuration The service configuration procedure is assumed to be initiated (step 1 in Figure 6) at the CMI from CNC to MDSC. Analysis of the CMI models is (e.g., L1SM, L2SM, Transport-Service, VN, et al.) is outside the scope of this document. As described in section 4.3, it is assumed that the CMI YANG models provide all the information that allows the MDSC to understand that it needs to coordinate the setup of a multi-domain ODU connection (or connection segment) and, when needed, also the configuration of the adaptation functions in the edge nodes belonging to different domains. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 35] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 | | {1} V ---------------- | {2} | | {3} MDSC | | | ---------------- ^ ^ ^ {3.1} | | | +---------+ |{3.2} | | | +----------+ | V | | ---------- |{3.3} | | PNC2 | | | ---------- | | ^ | V | {4.2} | ---------- V | | PNC1 | ----- V ---------- (Network) ---------- ^ ( Domain 2) | PNC3 | | {4.1} ( _) ---------- V ( ) ^ ----- C==========D | {4.3} (Network) / ( ) \ V ( Domain 1) / ----- \ ----- ( )/ \ (Network) A===========B \ ( Domain 3) / ( ) \( ) AP-1 ( ) X===========Z ----- ( ) \ ( ) AP-2 ----- Figure 6 - Multi-domain Service Setup As an example, the objective in this section is to configure a transport service between R1 and R5. The cross-domain routing is assumed to be R1 <-> S3 <-> S2 <-> S31 <-> S33 <-> S34 <->S15 <-> S18 <-> R5. According to the different client signal type, there is different adaptation required. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 36] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 After receiving such request, MDSC determines the domain sequence, i.e., domain 1 <-> domain 2 <-> domain 3, with corresponding PNCs and inter-domain links (step 2 in Figure 6). As described in [PATH-COMPUTE], the domain sequence can be determined by running the MDSC own path computation on the MDSC internal topology, defined in section 5.1.4, if and only if the MDSC has enough topology information. Otherwise, the MDSC can send path computation requests to the different PNCs (steps 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 in Figure 6) and use this information to determine the optimal path on its internal topology and therefore the domain sequence. The MDSC will then decompose the tunnel request into a few tunnel segments via tunnel model (including both TE tunnel model and OTN tunnel model), and request different PNCs to setup each intra-domain tunnel segment (steps 3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 in Figure 6). Assume that each intra-domain tunnel segment can be set up successfully, and each PNC response to the MDSC respectively. Based on each segment, MDSC will take care of the configuration of both the intra-domain tunnel segment and inter-domain tunnel via corresponding MPI (via TE tunnel model and OTN tunnel model). More specifically, for the inter-domain configuration, the ts-bitmap and tpn attributes need to be configured using the OTN Tunnel model. Then the end-to-end OTN tunnel will be ready. In any case, the access link configuration is done only on the PNCs that control the access links (e.g., PNC-1 and PNC-3 in our example) and not on the PNCs of transit domain (e.g., PNC-2 in our example). An access link will be configured by MDSC after the OTN tunnel is set up. Access configuration is different and dependent on the different type of service. More details can be found in the following sections. 5.2.1. ODU Transit Service In this scenario, described in section 4.3.1, the access links are configured as ODU Links. Since it is assumed that the physical access links are pre- configured, each PNC exposes, at its MPI, one TE Link (called "ODU Link") for each of these physical access link. These links are reported, together with any other ODU internal or inter-domain link, within the OTN abstract topology exposed by each PNC, at its own MPI. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 To setup this IP link, between R1 and R5, the CNC requests, at the CMI, the MDSC to setup an ODU transit service. From the topology information described in section 5.1 above, the MDSC understands that R1 is attached to the access link terminating on S3-1 LTP in the ODU Topology exposed by PNC1 and that R5 is attached to the access link terminating on AN2-1 LTP in the ODU Topology exposed by PNC2. MDSC would then request, at MPI1, the PNC1 to setup an ODU2 (Transit Segment) Tunnel with one primary path between S3-1 and S2-1 LTPs: o Source and Destination TTPs are not specified (since it is a Transit Tunnel) o Ingress and egress points are indicated in the route-object- include-exclude list of the explicit-route-objects of the primary path: o The first element references the access link terminating on S3-1 LTP o The last two element references respectively the inter-domain link terminating on S2-1 LTP and the data plane resources (i.e., the timeslots and the TPN, called "OTN Label") used by the ODU2 connection over that link. The configuration of the timeslots used by the ODU2 connection on the internal links within a PNC domain (i.e., on the internal links domain) is outside the scope of this document since it is a matter of the PNC domain internal implementation. However, the configuration of the timeslots used by the ODU2 connection at the transport network domain boundaries (e.g., on the inter-domain links) needs to take into account the timeslots available on physical nodes belonging to different PNC domains (e.g., on node S2 within PNC1 domain and on node S31 within PNC3 domain). The MDSC, when coordinating the setup of a multi-domain ODU connection, also configures the data plane resources (i.e., the timeslots and the TPN) to be used on the inter-domain links. The MDSC can know the timeslots which are available on the physical OTN nodes terminating the inter-domain links (e.g., S2 and S31) from the OTN Topology information exposed, at the MPIs, by the PNCs controlling Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 the OTN physical nodes (e.g., PNC1 and PNC3 controlling the physical nodes S2 and S31 respectively). Appendix B.2.1 provides the detailed JSON code ("mpi1-odu2-service- config.json") describing how the setup of this ODU2 (Transit Segment) Tunnel can be requested by the MDSC, using the [TE-TUNNEL] and [OTN- TUNNEL] YANG models at MPI1. The Transport PNC performs path computation and sets up the ODU2 cross-connections within the physical nodes S3, S5 and S6, as shown in section 4.3.1. 5.2.1.1. Single Domain Example To setup an ODU2 end-to-end connection, supporting an IP link, between R1 and R3, the CNC requests, at the CMI, the MDSC to setup an ODU transit service. The Transport PNC reports the status of the created ODU2 (Transit Segment) Tunnel and its path within the ODU Topology as shown in Figure 7 below: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 .................................. : : : ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI : : : : +----+ +----+ : : | | | | : : | S1 |--------| S2 |- - - - -(R4) : +----+ +----+ : : / | : : / | : : +----+ +----+ | : : | | | | | : (R1)- - - - - S3 |---| S4 | | : :S3-1 <<= + +----+ | : : = \ | : : = \ \ | : : == ---+ \ | : : = | \ | : : = S5 | \ | : : == --+ \ | : (R2)- - - - - = \ \ | : :S6-1 \ / = \ \ | : : +--- = +----+ +----+ : : | = | | | | : : | S6 = --| S7 |---| S8 |- - - - -(R5) : +--- = +----+ +----+ : : / = : (R3)- - - - - <<== : :S6-2 : :................................: Figure 7 - ODU2 Transit Tunnel 5.2.2. EPL over ODU Service In this scenario, described in section 4.3.2, the access links are configured as Ethernet Links. To setup this IP link, between R1 and R5, the CNC requests, at the CMI, the MDSC to setup an EPL service. As described in section 5.1.5 above, it is not clear in this case how the Ethernet access links between the transport network and the IP router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 If the 10GE physical links are not reported as ODU links within the OTN topology information, described in section 5.1.1 above than the MDSC will not have sufficient information to know that R1 and R5 are attached to the access links terminating on S3 and S6. Assuming that the MDSC knows how R1 and R3 are attached to the transport network, the MDSC would request the Transport PNC to setup an ODU2 end-to-end Tunnel between S3 and S6. This ODU Tunnel is setup between two TTPs of nodes S3 and S6. In case of nodes S3 and S6 support more than one TTP, the MDSC should decide which TTP to use. As discussed in 5.1.5, depending on the different hardware implementations of the physical nodes S3 and S6, not all the access links can be connected to all the TTPs. The MDSC should therefore select not only the optimal TTP but also a TTP that would allow the Tunnel to be used by the service. It is assumed that in case of node S3 or node S6 supports only one TTP, this TTP can be accessed by all the access links. Appendix B.2.2 provides the detailed JSON code ("mpi1-odu2-tunnel- config.json") describing how the setup of this ODU2 (Head Segment) Tunnel can be requested by the MDSC, using the [TE-TUNNEL] and [OTN- TUNNEL] YANG models at MPI1. Once the ODU2 Tunnel setup has been requested, unless there is a one- to-one relationship between the S3 and S6 TTPs and the Ethernet access links toward R1 and R3 (as in the case, described in section 5.1.5, where the Ethernet access links reside on different/dedicated access card such that the ODU2 tunnel can only carry the Ethernet traffic from the only Ethernet access link on the same access card where the ODU2 tunnel is terminated), the MDSC also needs to request the setup of an EPL service from the access links on S3 and S6, attached to R1 and R3, and this ODU2 Tunnel. Appendix B.2.3 provides the detailed JSON code ("mpi1-epl-service- config.json") describing how the setup of this EPL service using the ODU2 Tunnel can be requested by the MDSC, using the [CLIENT-SVC] YANG model at MPI1. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 5.2.3. Other OTN Client Services In this scenario, the access links are configured as one of the OTN clients (e.g., STM-64) links. As described in section 4.3.3, the CNC needs to setup an STM-64 Private Link service, supporting an IP link, between R1 and R3 and requests this service at the CMI to the MDSC. MDSC needs to setup an STM-64 Private Link service between R1 and R3 supported by an ODU2 end-to-end connection between S3 and S6. As described in section 5.1.5 above, it is not clear in this case how the access links (e.g., the STM-N access links) between the transport network and the IP router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC. The same issues, as described in section 5.2.2, apply here: o the MDSC needs to understand that R1 and R3 are connected, thought STM-64 access links, with S3 and S6 o the MDSC needs to understand which TTPs in S3 and S6 can be accessed by these access links o the MDSC needs to configure the private line service from these access links through the ODU2 tunnel 5.2.4. EVPL over ODU Service In this scenario, the access links are configured as Ethernet links, as described in section 5.2.2 above. As described in section 4.3.4, the CNC needs to setup EVPL services, supporting IP links, between R1 and R3, as well as between R1 and R4 and requests these services at the CMI to the MDSC. MDSC needs to setup two EVPL services, between R1 and R3, as well as between R1 and R4, supported by ODU0 end-to-end connections between S3 and S6 and between S3 and S2 respectively. As described in section 5.1.5 above, it is not clear in this case how the Ethernet access links between the transport network and the IP router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 42] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 The same issues, as described in section 5.1.5 above, apply here: o the MDSC needs to understand that R1, R3 and R4 are connected, thought the Ethernet access links, with S3, S6 and S2 o the MDSC needs to understand which TTPs in S3, S6 and S2 can be accessed by these access links o the MDSC needs to configure the EVPL services from these access links through the ODU0 tunnels In addition, the MDSC needs to get the information that the access links on S3, S6 and S2 are capable of supporting EVPL (rather than just EPL) as well as to coordinate the VLAN configuration, for each EVPL service, on these access links (this is a similar issue as the timeslot configuration on access links discussed in section 4.3.1 above). 5.3. YANG Models for Protection Configuration 5.3.1. Linear Protection (end-to-end) To be discussed in future versions of this document. 5.3.2. Segmented Protection To be discussed in future versions of this document. 6. Security Considerations Inherently OTN networks ensure privacy and security via hard partitioning of traffic onto dedicated circuits. The separation of network traffic makes it difficult to intercept data transferred between nodes over OTN-channelized links. This document analyses the applicability of the YANG models being defined by the IETF to support OTN single and multi-domain scenarios There are no specific new security considerations introduced by this document. In OTN the (General Communication Channel) GCC is used for OAM functions such as performance monitoring, fault detection, and signaling. The GCC control channel should be secured using a suitable mechanism. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 43] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 7. IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA actions. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC7926] Farrel, A. et al., "Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange between Interconnected Traffic- Engineered Networks", BCP 206, RFC 7926, July 2016. [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006. [RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Lee, Y. et al., "Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC8453, August 2018. [ITU-T G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709 (06/16), "Interfaces for the optical transport network", June 2016. [ITU-T G.808.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.808.1 (05/14), "Generic protection switching - Linear trail and subnetwork protection", May 2014. [ITU-T G.873.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.873.1 (05/14), "Optical transport network (OTN): Linear protection", May 2014. [TE-TOPO] Liu, X. et al., "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies", draft- ietf-teas-yang-te-topo, work in progress. [OTN-TOPO] Zheng, H. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology", draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang, work in progress. [CLIENT-TOPO] Zheng, H. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Client-layer Topology", draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang, work in progress. [TE-TUNNEL] Saad, T. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang- te, work in progress. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 44] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 [PATH-COMPUTE] Busi, I., Belotti, S. et al, "Yang model for requesting Path Computation", draft-ietf-teas-yang-path- computation, work in progress. [OTN-TUNNEL] Zheng, H. et al., "OTN Tunnel YANG Model", draft-ietf- ccamp-otn-tunnel-model, work in progress. [CLIENT-SVC] Zheng, H. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Client Signals", draft-zheng-ccamp-otn- client-signal-yang, work in progress. 8.2. Informative References [RFC5151] Farrel, A. et al., "Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering --Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 5151, February 2008. [RFC6898] Li, D. et al., "Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and Configuration Modifications", RFC 6898, March 2013. [RFC8040] Bierman, A. et al., "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, January 2017. [RFC8309] Wu, Q. et al., "Service Models Explained", RFC 8309, January 2018. [ACTN-YANG] Zhang, X. et al., "Applicability of YANG models for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks", draft-zhang-teas-actn-yang, work in progress. [RFC-FOLD] Watsen, K. et al., "Handling Long Lines in Artwork in Internet-Drafts and RFCs", work in progress [ONF TR-527] ONF Technical Recommendation TR-527, "Functional Requirements for Transport API", June 2016. [ONF GitHub] ONF Open Transport (SNOWMASS) https://github.com/OpenNetworkingFoundation/Snowmass- ONFOpenTransport Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 45] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 9. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all members of the Transport NBI Design Team involved in the definition of use cases, gap analysis and guidelines for using the IETF YANG models at the Northbound Interface (NBI) of a Transport SDN Controller. The authors would like to thank Xian Zhang, Anurag Sharma, Sergio Belotti, Tara Cummings, Michael Scharf, Karthik Sethuraman, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Hans Bjursrom and Italo Busi for having initiated the work on gap analysis for transport NBI and having provided foundations work for the development of this document. The authors would like to thank the authors of the TE Topology and Tunnel YANG models [TE-TOPO] and [TE-TUNNEL], in particular Igor Bryskin, Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Tarek Saad and Xufeng Liu, for their support in addressing any gap identified during the analysis work. The authors would like to thank Henry Yu and Aihua Guo for their input and review of the URIs structures used within the JSON code examples. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 46] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Appendix A. Validating a JSON fragment against a YANG Model The objective is to have a tool that allows validating whether a piece of JSON code embedded in an Internet-Draft is compliant with a YANG model without using a client/server. A.1. Manipulation of JSON fragments This section describes the various ways JSON fragments are used in the I-D processing and how to manage them. Let's call "folded-JSON" the JSON embedded in the I-D: it fits the 72 chars width and it is acceptable for it to be invalid JSON. We then define "unfolded-JSON" a valid JSON fragment having the same contents of the "folded-JSON " without folding, i.e. limits on the text width. The folding/unfolding operation may be done according to draft-kwatsen-netmod-artwork-folding. The "unfolded-JSON" can be edited by the authors using JSON editors with the advantages of syntax validation and pretty-printing. Both the "folded" and the "unfolded" JSON fragments can include comments having descriptive fields and directives we'll describe later to facilitate the reader and enable some automatic processing. The presence of comments in the "unfolded-JSON" fragment makes it an invalid JSON encoding of YANG data. Therefore we call "naked JSON" the JSON where the comments have been stripped out: not only it is valid JSON but it is a valid JSON encoding of YANG data. The following schema resumes these definitions: unfold_it --> stripper --> Folded-JSON Unfolded-JSON Naked JSON <-- fold_it <-- author edits <=72-chars? MUST MAY MAY valid JSON? MAY MUST MUST JSON-encoding MAY MAY MUST Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 47] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 of YANG data Our validation toolchain has been designed to take a JSON in any of the three formats and validate it automatically against a set of relevant YANG modules using available open-source tools. It can be found at: https://github.com/GianmarcoBruno/json-yang/ A.2. Comments in JSON fragments We found useful to introduce two kinds of comments, both defined as key-value pairs where the key starts with "//": - free-form descriptive comments, e.g."// COMMENT" : "refine this" to describe properties of JSON fragments. - machine-usable directives e.g. "// __REFERENCES__DRAFTS__" : { "ietf-routing-types@2017-12-04": "rfc8294",} which can be used to automatically download from the network the relevant I-Ds or RFCs and extract from them the YANG models of interest. This is particularly useful to keep consistency when the drafting work is rapidly evolving. A.3. Validation of JSON fragments: DSDL-based approach The idea is to generate a JSON driver file (JTOX) from YANG, then use it to translate JSON to XML and validate it against the DSDL schemas, as shown in Figure 8. Useful link: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/wiki/XmlJson Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 48] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 (2) YANG-module ---> DSDL-schemas (RNG,SCH,DSRL) | | | (1) | | | Config/state JTOX-file | (4) \ | | \ | | \ V V JSON-file------------> XML-file ----------------> Output (3) Figure 8 - DSDL-based approach for JSON code validation In order to allow the use of comments following the convention defined in section 3without impacting the validation process, these comments will be automatically removed from the JSON-file that will be validate. A.4. Validation of JSON fragments: why not using a XSD-based approach This approach has been analyzed and discarded because no longer supported by pyang. The idea is to convert YANG to XSD, JSON to XML and validate it against the XSD, as shown in Figure 9: (1) YANG-module ---> XSD-schema - \ (3) +--> Validation JSON-file------> XML-file ----/ (2) Figure 9 - XSD-based approach for JSON code validation The pyang support for the XSD output format was deprecated in 1.5 and removed in 1.7.1. However pyang 1.7.1 is necessary to work with YANG 1.1 so the process shown in Figure 9 will stop just at step (1). Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 49] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Appendix B. Detailed JSON Examples The JSON code examples provided in this appendix have been validated using the tools in Appendix A and folded using the tool in [RFC- FOLD]. B.1. JSON Examples for Topology Abstractions B.1.1. JSON Code: mpi1-otn-topology.json This is the JSON code reporting the OTN Topology @ MPI: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 50] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 ========== NOTE: '\\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) =========== { "// __TITLE__": "ODU Black Topology @ MPI1", "// __LAST_UPDATE__": "October 18, 2018", "// __MISSING_ATTRIBUTES__": true, "// __REFERENCE_DRAFTS__": { "ietf-routing-types@2017-12-04": "rfc8294", "ietf-otn-types@2017-10-30": "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-\ \01", "ietf-network@2018-02-26": "rfc8345", "ietf-network-topology@2018-02-26": "rfc8345", "ietf-te-types@2018-06-12": "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-15", "ietf-te-topology@2018-06-15": "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-18", "ietf-otn-topology@2017-10-30": "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-\ \02" }, "// __RESTCONF_OPERATION__": { "operation": "GET", "url": "http://{{PNC1-ADDR}}/restconf/data/ietf-network:networks" }, "ietf-network:networks": { "network": [ { "network-id": "providerId/201/clientId/300/topologyId/otn-bl\ \ack-topology", "network-types": { "ietf-te-topology:te-topology": { "ietf-otn-topology:otn-topology": {} } }, "ietf-te-topology:provider-id": 201, "ietf-te-topology:client-id": 300, "ietf-te-topology:te-topology-id": "otn-black-topology", "// ietf-te-topology:te": "presence container requires: prov\ \ider, client and te-topology-id", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "OTN Black Topology @ MPI1" }, "// ietf-network:node": "Access LTPs to be reviewed in a fut\ \ure update", "ietf-network:node": [ { "// __NODE__:__DESCRIPTION__": { Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 51] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "name": "AN1", "identifier": "10.0.0.1", "type": "Abstract Node", "physical node(s)": "whole network domain 1" }, "node-id": "10.0.0.1", "ietf-te-topology:te-node-id": "10.0.0.1", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-node-attributes": { "name": "AN11", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay-topology": "To be discussed\ \ with TE Topology authors" }, "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ tunnel-termination-point": [] }, "ietf-network-topology:termination-point": [ { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-1 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-2", "physical node": "S3", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 1, "port type": "tributary port", "connected to": "R1" }, "tp-id": "1", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 1, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-1 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/1)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Access Lin\ \k", "// __COMMENT__ inter-layer-lock-id": "Empty: OTN \ \Links are pre-configured", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "List of ODU clients?", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 52] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 \true } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-2 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-4", "physical node": "S2", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 1, "port type": "inter-domain port", "connected to": "S31" }, "tp-id": "2", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 2, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-2 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/2)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Inter-doma\ \in Link", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "Empty? (inter-domain OTN link)", "// __DEFAULT__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \false } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-3 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-2", "physical node": "S6", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 1, "port type": "tributary port", "connected to": "R2" }, "tp-id": "3", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 3, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-3 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/3)", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 53] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Access Lin\ \k", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "List of ODU clients?", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \true } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-4 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-4", "physical node": "S8", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 1, "port type": "inter-domain port", "connected to": "S32" }, "tp-id": "4", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 4, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-4 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/4)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Inter-doma\ \in Link", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "Empty? (inter-domain OTN link)", "// __DEFAULT__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \false } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-5 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-4", "physical node": "S8", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 5, "port type": "inter-domain port", "connected to": "S12" }, "tp-id": "5", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 54] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 5, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-5 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/5)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Inter-doma\ \in Link", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "Empty? (inter-domain OTN link)", "// __DEFAULT__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \false } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-6 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-4", "physical node": "S7", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 4, "port type": "inter-domain port", "connected to": "S11" }, "tp-id": "6", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 6, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-6 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/6)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Inter-doma\ \in Link", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "Empty? (inter-domain OTN link)", "// __DEFAULT__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \false } }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LTP__": { "name": "AN1-7 LTP", "link type(s)": "OTU-2", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 55] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "physical node": "S6", "unnumberd/ifIndex": 2, "port type": "tributary port", "connected to": "R3" }, "tp-id": "7", "ietf-te-topology:te-tp-id": 7, "ietf-te-topology:te": { "name": "AN1-7 LTP", "admin-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ interface-switching-capability": "\ \See Link attributes (teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/7)", "// __DISCUSS__ inter-domain-plug-id": "Access Lin\ \k", "oper-status": "up", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:supported-payloa\ \d-types": "List of ODU clients?", "// __DISCUSS__ ietf-otn-topology:client-facing": \ \true } } ] } ], "// ietf-network-topology:link": "Access links to be reviewe\ \d in a future update", "ietf-network-topology:link": [ { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-1", "type": "access link", "physical link": "Link from S3-1 to R1" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/1", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-1", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __COMMENT__ external-domain": "Empty: the plug-i\ \d is used instead of this container", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 56] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU2" } ] } ], "// __COMMENT__ label-restrictions": "Not described \ \in this JSON example", "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" }, "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" } ] }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 1 }, Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 57] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __EMPTY__ destination": "access link" }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-2", "type": "inter-domain link", "physical link": "Link from S2-1 to S31" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/2", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-2", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU4" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 58] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." } ] }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 2 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "inter-domain link" }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-3", "type": "access link", "physical link": "Link from S6-1 to R2" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/3", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-3", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 59] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU2" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" } ], "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" } }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 3 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "access link" }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-4", "type": "inter-domain link", "physical link": "Link from S8-1 to S32" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/4", "ietf-te-topology:te": { Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 60] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-4", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU4" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." } ], "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." } }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 61] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 4 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "inter-domain link" }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-5", "type": "inter-domain link", "physical link": "Link from S8-5 to S12" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/5", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-5", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU4" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 62] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." } ] }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 5 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "inter-domain link" }, { "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-6", "type": "inter-domain link", "physical link": "Link from S7-4 to S11" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1/teLinkId/6", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Inter-domain Link from AN1-6", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 63] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU4" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU4, ..." } ] }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 6 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "inter-domain link" }, { Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 64] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __DESCRIPTION__:__LINK__": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-7", "type": "access link", "physical link": "Link from S6-2 to R3" }, "link-id": "teNodeId/10.0.0.1teLinkId/7", "ietf-te-topology:te": { "te-link-attributes": { "name": "Access Link from AN1-7", "// __DISCUSS__ access-type": "Can we assume point-t\ \o-point as the default value?", "access-type": "point-to-point", "// __DISCUSS__ is-abstract": "To be discussed with \ \TE Topology authors", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay": "To be discussed with TE \ \Topology authors", "admin-status": "up", "interface-switching-capability": [ { "switching-capability": "ietf-te-types:switching\ \-otn", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk", "max-lsp-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "ODU2" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ label-restrictions": "To be adde\ \d?" } ], "// __DISCUSS__ link-protection-type": "Can we assum\ \e unprotected as the default value?", "link-protection-type": "unprotected", "max-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" }, "max-resv-link-bandwidth": { "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" }, "unreserved-bandwidth": [ { "priority": 0, Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 65] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// __DISCUSS__ te-bandwidth": "1xODU2" } ] }, "oper-status": "up", "// __EMPTY__ is-transitional": "It is not a transitio\ \nal link", "// __DISCUSS__ underlay ": "To be discussed with TE T\ \opology authors" }, "source": { "source-node": "10.0.0.1", "source-tp": 7 }, "// __EMPTY__ destination": "access link" } ] } ] } } B.2. JSON Examples for Service Configuration B.2.1. JSON Code: mpi1-odu2-service-config.json This is the JSON code reporting the ODU2 transit service configuration @ MPI: Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 66] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 ========== NOTE: '\\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) =========== { "// __TITLE__": "ODU2 Service Configuration @ MPI1", "// __LAST_UPDATE__": "October 22, 2018", "// __MISSING_ATTRIBUTES__": true, "// __REFERENCE_DRAFTS__": { "ietf-routing-types@2017-12-04": "rfc8294", "ietf-otn-types@2018-06-07": "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-\ \02", "ietf-te-types@2018-07-01": "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-16", "ietf-te@2018-07-01": "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-16", "ietf-otn-tunnel@2018-06-07": "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model\ \-02" }, "// __RESTCONF_OPERATION__": { "operation": "PUT", "url": "http://{{PNC1-ADDR}}/restconf/data/ietf-te:te" }, "ietf-te:te": { "tunnels": { "tunnel": [ { "name": "mpi1-odu2-service", "// identifier": "ODU2-SERVICE-TUNNEL-ID @ MPI1", "identifier": 1, "description": "ODU2 Service implemented by ODU2 OTN Tunne\ \l Segment @ MPI1", "// encoding and switching-type": "ODU", "encoding": "ietf-te-types:lsp-encoding-oduk ", "switching-type": "ietf-te-types:switching-otn", "// source": "None: transit tunnel segment", "// destination": "None: transit tunnel segment", "// src-tp-id": "None: transit tunnel segment", "// dst-tp-id": "None: transit tunnel segment", "// ietf-otn-tunnel:src-client-signal": "None: ODU transit\ \ tunnel segment", "// ietf-otn-tunnel:dst-client-signal": "None: ODU transit\ \ tunnel segment", "bidirectional": true, "// protection": "No protection", "// __ DEFAULT __ protection": { "// __ DEFAULT __ enable": false }, Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 67] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "// restoration": "No restoration", "// __ DEFAULT __ restoration": { "// __ DEFAULT __ enable": false }, "// te-topology-identifier": "ODU Black Topology @ MPI1", "te-topology-identifier": { "provider-id": 201, "client-id": 300, "topology-id": "otn-black-topology" }, "te-bandwidth": { "ietf-otn-tunnel:odu-type": "ietf-otn-types:prot-ODU2" }, "// hierarchical-link": "None: transit tunnel segment", "p2p-primary-paths": { "p2p-primary-path": [ { "name": "mpi1-odu2-service-primary-path", "path-scope": "ietf-te-types:path-scope-segment", "// te-bandwidth": "None: only the tunnel bandwidth \ \needs to be specified in transport applications", "explicit-route-objects": { "route-object-include-exclude": [ { "// comment": "Tunnel hand-off OTU2 ingress in\ \terface (S3-1)", "index": 1, "explicit-route-usage": "ietf-te-types:route-i\ \nclude-ero", "num-unnum-hop": { "// node-id": "AN1 Node", "node-id": "10.0.0.1", "// link-tp-id": "AN1-1 LTP", "link-tp-id": 1, "hop-type": "STRICT", "direction": "INCOMING" } }, { "// comment": "Tunnel hand-off ODU2 ingress la\ \bel (ODU2 over OTU2) at S3-1", "index": 2, "explicit-route-usage": "ietf-te-types:route-i\ \nclude-ero", Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 68] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 "label-hop": { "te-label": { "// __ DISCUSS __ odu-label": "How are HO-\ \ODU (ODUk over OTUk) label represented?", "// __ DISCUSS __ direction": "Check with \ \TE Tunnel authors", "direction": "FORWARD " } } }, { "// comment": "Tunnel hand-off OTU4 egress int\ \erface (S2-1)", "index": 3, "explicit-route-usage": "ietf-te-types:route-i\ \nclude-ero", "num-unnum-hop": { "// node-id": "AN1 Node", "node-id": "10.0.0.1", "// link-tp-id": "AN1-2 LTP", "link-tp-id": 1, "hop-type": "STRICT", "direction": "OUTGOING" } }, { "// comment": "Tunnel hand-off ODU2 egress lab\ \el (ODU2 over OTU4) at S2-1", "index": 4, "explicit-route-usage": "ietf-te-types:route-i\ \nclude-ero", "label-hop": { "te-label": { "ietf-otn-tunnel:tpn": 1, "ietf-otn-tunnel:tsg": "ietf-otn-types:tsg\ \-1.25G", "ietf-otn-tunnel:ts-list": "1-8", "// __ DISCUSS __ direction": "Check with \ \TE Tunnel authors", "direction": "FORWARD " } } } ] Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 69] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 } } ] } } ] } } } B.2.2. JSON Code: mpi1-odu2-tunnel-config.json The JSON code for this use case will be added in a future version of this document An incomplete version is located on GitHub at: https://github.com/danielkinguk/transport-nbi B.2.3. JSON Code: mpi1-epl-service-config.json The JSON code for this use case will be added in a future version of this document An incomplete version is located on GitHub at: https://github.com/danielkinguk/transport-nbi Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 70] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Authors' Addresses Italo Busi (Editor) Huawei Email: italo.busi@huawei.com Daniel King (Editor) Lancaster University Email: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk Haomian Zheng (Editor) Huawei Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Yunbin Xu (Editor) CAICT Email: xuyunbin@ritt.cn Yang Zhao China Mobile Email: zhaoyangyjy@chinamobile.com Sergio Belotti Nokia Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com Gianmarco Bruno Ericsson Email: gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 71] Internet-Draft Transport NBI Applicability-Statement November 2018 Young Lee Huawei Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Victor Lopez Telefonica Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com Carlo Perocchio Ericsson Email: carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com Ricard Vilalta CTTC Email: ricard.vilalta@cttc.es Busi, King, et al. Expires May 4, 2019 [Page 72]