Network Working Group O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Internet-Draft Telefonica Intended status: Standards Track G. Bernini Expires: September 8, 2011 Nextworks G. Zervas Univ of Essex M. Basham Intune Networks March 7, 2011 Framework for GMPLS and path computation support of sub-wavelength switching optical networks draft-gonzalezdedios-subwavelength-framework-00 Abstract This document discusses the framework for enhancements to the GMPLS architecture to control sub-wavelength switching optical networks. Sub-wavelengths refer to the time-shared utilization of a single wavelength by optical bursts, packets or slots. Sub-wavelngth technologies are the base of new cost-effective network architectures. In particular, they are sutited for metro areas, to cope with high traffic volumens as well as more demanding requirements of networked applications. 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). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Sub-wavelength optical networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Sub-wavelength switching research and applicability scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Sub-wavelength network resource control . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Control functions and time-scales . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Network resource modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. GMPLS implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Impact on GMPLS signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.1. Sub-wavelength resources and labels . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.2. Sub-wavelength traffic specification . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Impact on GMPLS routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1. Sub-wavelength network resource availability advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Route computation and sub-wavelength resource assignment scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. Centralized PCE and centralized sub-wavelength resource assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. Centralized PCE and distributed sub-wavelength resource assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Distributed PCE and distributed sub-wavelength resource assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 1. Introduction A broad range of emerging services and applications drive the evolutionary trend of traffic growth at metro-regional networks with more and more demands for high bandwidth. However, recent measures and forecasts by network operators show that the expected traffic flows in the metro area for the next 10 years will occupy just a fraction of a wavelength (typically bearing 10 Gbps throughputs); consequently, the deployment of sub-wavelength statistically multiplexed networks can highly enhance the resource utilization [MAINS]. Moreover, the emergence of network centric services is also requiring more and more short-lived connections (in the range of secs, mins) with Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees: such services include Video on Demand (VoD), Storage Area Network (SAN) and a number of Cloud services. In this network scenario, the metro-regional network should provide a contention-free sub-wavelength data transport environment with fast time-to-service delivery (few msecs), low end-to-end delay and multiple levels of guaranteed QoS. Nevertheless, an effective and sub-wavelength enabled supervising upper control layer might be needed to control the end-to-end resource reservation and routing across multiple sub-wavelength technologies. The IETF GMPLS is currently the most efficient solution for managing the physical core tunneling technologies of Internet and Telecom service providers. The natively generalized control approach enabled by GMPLS on the underlying Transport Plane allows also handling multiple switching technologies under a single Control Plane instance (MRN/MLN). The objective of this document is to define the framework for enhancements and extensions to the GMPLS protocols and procedures, to allow the automatic control of sub- wavelength optical switches. 2. Sub-wavelength optical networks During the last few years there have been considerable developments on sub-wavelength optical networks for metro/core regions. Sub- wavelength optical networks incorporate the optical time domain in addition to the wavelength/frequency and space domains that are dealt with the wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). Such networks allow for time-shared use of individual or multiple wavelengths of a transparent optical network infrastructure, and multiple label switched paths (LSPs) can be transparently switched over the same wavelength of any link. This is possible due to the dynamic access and switch of transparent sub-wavelength data-sets such as optical time-slices/packet/bursts/flows. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 The use of sub-wavelength networks is further motivated by the need to support the various granularity requirements (as in SONET/SDH, OTN) on optically transparent switching technologies either fixed or arbitrary. This allows for optical bypassing of statistically multiplexed sub-wavelength data-sets and as such reduces the use of O/E/O conversions and data processing at every node. This can potentially enhance optical network utilization and reduce the transport delays. Such network system has the ability to create, transport and switch tailored data-sets at sub-wavelength granularities to match network service requirements. The main enablers of sub-wavelength optical networks are the fast tunable lasers [FTL] and fast optical switching elements [Fast- Switches]. Fast tunable lasers that span across the ITU-T C-Band can deliver nanoseconds wavelength-tuning time. Fast tunable lasers have been used in ingress and bypass nodes. In the ingress node they enable time-shared tunable transmission [Tunable-Trans], whereas in bypass nodes time-shared optical switching [Tunable-Switch] and time- shared wavelength conversion [Lambda-Convert]. More specifically, tunable ingress nodes can map optical data-sets (e.g. slots/packets/ bursts/flows) to particular wavelength(s) according to their destination address. Bypass nodes use fast tunable lasers together with other optical devices (e.g. semiconductor optical amplifiers, SOAs) to convert incoming wavelength(s) for contention purposes. Combination of fast and transparent optical switches, MUX/DEMUX, optical wavelength routers (e.g. NxN arrayed waveguide gratings, AWGs), fast EDFAs (fast transient response time) and bursty receivers have been used to demonstrate sub-wavelength transparent optical networks [OPS-Network1][OPS-Network2]. In addition, Optical Packet Switch and Transport is a new networking platform that collapses layers 0 to 2 inside a ring network, by using ultra-fast tunable laser transmitters. The tunable transmitters act as both transmitters and switches simultaneously, which collapses the layers under one control system. The ring supports wavelength routing scheme to address packet flows based on wavelength selective switch, which acts as the address.[OPST-Network3]. Such optical technologies have enabled a variety of optical switching techniques. These include optical slotted and un-slotted optical packet/label/burst [OPS-OLS-OBS], as well as optical flow switching [OFS]. Such switching techniques have been designed to support both connection-oriented and connection-less services and as such different quality of service (QoS) guarantees. Furthermore, effort has been made to deliver interoperation between optical burst and circuit switched networks [CP-OBS-OCS] as well as a common control plane solution for optical packet and circuit switched networks [CP-OPS-OCS]. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 Considering the evolution, progress and variety of sub-wavelength optical networks it is important to address standardization aspects that would specify a transport-agnostic GMPLS control plane able to control and provision different sub-wavelength optical transport networks on a generic way. This would deliver interoperability between different sub-wavelength transport networks but also between sub-wavelength and WSON networks. 2.1. Sub-wavelength switching research and applicability scenarios Some positioning statements by networks operators are provided in this section to describe their main objectives, activities and interests towards the deployment of sub-wavelength switching technologies. The main drivers for sub-wavelength switching technologies are: o Increased capacity and scalability for intensive bandwidth consuming applications (e.g. 3D video, high definition videoconference, etc) o Operational simplicity by integrating optical (DWDM) and packet switching technologies (e.g. Ethernet, MPLS) in a single networking platform o Dynamic high capacity data transfers between distributed servers would enable an optimized planning of both IT (e.g. storage and computation) and network resources for cloud services Both network operators and vendors will be benefitiated form the definition of common GMPLS extensions for any kind of sub-wavelength technology enabling end-to-end resource reservation and routing across different technological domains (e.g. sub-wavelength, WSON, etc). 3. Sub-wavelength network resource control 3.1. Control functions and time-scales The time-scale of sub-wavelength optical networks control is broad and can be structured in three different levels. The first and coarser time-scale represents the duration of an LSP, which could be long-lived (e.g. days, hours) or short-lived (e.g. minutes, minutes, hours, days and can be directly controlled by GMPLS. The LSP durations decreasing towards seconds may have an impact on both GMPLS signaling and routing procedures, in terms of provisioning success, signaling overheads and TE topology accuracy. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 The second level of time-scale is the optical frame in a repeating cycle. The duration (i.e. microseconds, milliseconds) and frame structure is controlled by sub-wavelength optical transport plane and is used to accommodate any fixed (i.e. optical time-slots) or flexible (i.e. optical packets/bursts, time-slices) data-sets. LSP durations in this context correspond to multiple frames. Framing the time on a cycle manner can aid towards the provisioning of the sub- wavelength data-sets. The finest level of time-scale is the time-slice. It represents a fixed or flexible time proportion of a frame that corresponds to the amount of data-set (e.g. time-slot/time-slice, packet, burst, flow) and in turn bandwidth that can be individually switched and transported over the sub-wavelength optical network. The allocation and assignment of time-slices is controlled by the sub-wavelength optical transport plane. In this context, an LSP could be associated with a number of fixed or arbitrary sized time-slices per frame and the allocation of these time-sliced resources is described in section 6. Consequently, the control of sub-wavelength network resources can be effectively performed just through the tight interworking of two different control layers: the GMPLS and the specific sub-wavelength optical transport control functions. This vertical cooperation can follow two different models, i.e. the overlay-style and the augmented, which depends on the procedures for information exchange and resource provisioning, and the information contents. The overlay-style interworking is based on an independent control by GMPLS and sub-wavelength optical transport network. Main concepts of this architectural model are the following: o The TED maintained by the GMPLS (either distributed or centralized). o The sub-wavelength optical transport control functions, which manage the sub-wavelength scheduling database. o Using this model only the concept of sub-wavelength data over WSON is feasible. In that case a LSP is first established and then sub-wavelength flows use it to transport data across the network. Only a single LSP can be established per wavelength (no statistical multiplexing is feasible) and as such resource utilization and service flexibility is limited to grooming at the ingress node. The advantage of such solution is the minimum extensions required for the GMPLS protocols. However, the major disadvantage of such Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 interworking approach is the lack of statistical multiplexing capabilities (i.e. multiple sub-wavelength LSPs per wavelength). The augmented model allows for TE information exchange from sub- wavelength optical transport control system and GMPLS CP. Main concepts are: o Deployment of two types of TED: * the GMPLS TED holds and maintains aggregated/abstracted sub- wavelength information (e.g. total time-slices - number or duration - per wavelength) * the sub-wavelength optical transport TED maintains detailed information (e.g. accurate time availability representation of each frame per wavelength). o Route selection and time resource assignment is coordinated among both GMPLS and sub-wavelength transport control functions in a centralized or distributed style: * the GMPLS is able to assign the possible route(s) and/or wavelength(s) based on the abstracted resource information to follow standard procedures. * in a subsequent step, based on the calculated routes and/or wavelengths, the sub-wavelength transport control can assign the time-slices with the frame structure. o The LSP is provisioned by GMPLS and the individual access and switching of each time-slice is guaranteed by sub-wavelength optical transport control functions (e.g. data mapping to optical time-slices at ingress nodes, time-slice switching at bypass nodes). o Due to this collaborative task more than one LSP per wavelength is feasible and, thus, sub-wavelength statistical multiplexing is feasible. Also guaranteed contention-free network services can be delivered due to pre-established LSPs. 3.2. Network resource modeling The vertical cooperation among the GMPLS control plane and the sub- wavelength transport plane control functions can be achieved under the condition of a certain level of GMPLS awareness of the sub- wavelength network resource availabilities. Therefore, a proper modeling of these new switching resources is needed in terms of Traffic Engineering parameters. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 As previously stated, the operational time-scale of sub-wavelength optical networks is highly dynamic in comparison with the standard GMPLS operation time (i.e. signaling and routing procedures). This results in an impact of the potential fast variations of sub- wavelength resource availabilities at GMPLS control plane. For a proper GMPLS operation and control traffic balance, the frequency of subwavelength resource updates needs to be limited, though minimizing the potential contention on resource (i.e. wavelengths) due to subsequent inaccurate TE topology representation. Specific aggregation procedures need to be performed by the sub-wavelength optical network transport plane control functions to let the GMPLS maintain a summarized knowledge of sub-wavelength network resource availabilities, coherent and compatible with its operation time- scale. For a given sub-wavelength optical network link, the GMPLS control plane should be aware of the free capacity in each wavelength, to allow the time-shared use of the single wavelengths. Such an aggregated and summarized description of sub-wavelength network resources would enable, on the one hand, the exchange of sub- wavelength TE routing information, and, on the other hand, the signaling and configuration of multiple LSPs sharing - where possible - the same wavelengths. The resource contention avoidance as well as the sub-wavelength switching configuration would be left to the sub- wavelength optical network transport plane control functions. This further control action will occur along the end-to-end path provisioned by the GMPLS control plane. Since the sub-wavelength enabled GMPLS control plane is responsible for the end-to-end resource reservation and routing across multiple sub-wavelength technologies, the network resource modeling should be valid for any kind of sub-wavelength technology (i.e. optical packets, bursts, flows, etc.). To this purpose, a new Switching Type should be defined to model the sub-wavelength network resources: o Sub-Wavelength Switching Capability: to indicate the switching performed on a link, which supports the time-shared use of a wavelength. The SWSC would group all the specific implementations of sub-wavelength switching. Since the Sub-Wavelength Switching Capability would be an intermediate switching type between TDM (value: 100) and LSC (value: 150), its value should be chosen in the <100,150> range to preserve the switching capability ordering and LSP region definitions specified in [RFC4206]. The identification of the specific sub-wavelength technologies should be performed defining new LSP Encoding Types (i.e. one for each switching technology), to univocally identify the links able to carry Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 and switch a signal encoded in a sub-wavelength format rather than another. As a result, a given sub-wavelength optical network link should be described at least by the following parameters: o List of allowed/available wavelengths, e.g. described through the "Wavelength Label" format specified in [LAMBDA-LABELS] o For each wavelength, a sub-wavelength TE parameter accounting the free wavelength capacity 4. GMPLS implications The GMPLS architecture [RFC3945] is designed to provide automatic provisioning of connections with traffic engineering, traffic survivability (i.e. protections, restorations), and automatic resource discovery and management. The GMPLS specifications are fully agnostic of specific deployment models and transport environments. Specific procedures have been defined to control transport networks as diverse as SDH/SONET [RFC3946], OTNs incorporating G.709 encapsulation [RFC4328], and Ethernet[RFC5828]. The sub-wavelength optical networks expose switching granularities and capabilities not natively supported by GMPLS. The following sub- sections provides a description of the impact of sub-wavelength switching granularity support on the GMPLS signaling and routing control functions, identifying a set of requirements to be evaluated for extensions of the current GMPLS protocol suite. 4.1. Impact on GMPLS signaling Current GMPLS signaling procedures does not support the provisioning of sub-wavelength optical LSPs, where a single wavelength in a link can be shared among multiple LSPs. Two GMPLS signaling aspects are mainly affected by the introduction of sub-wavelength switching granularity: the identification of the sub-wavelength labels, and the characterization of the sub-wavelength data traffic. 4.1.1. Sub-wavelength resources and labels An LSP signaled in a sub-wavelength optical network will reserve hop- by-hop the sub-wavelength resources. Current GMPLS signaling procedures does not support the identification of such fine-grained transport network resources. This means that a new type of label, i.e. a sub-wavelength label, should be defined to identify the sub- wavelength resources to be reserved in the transport plane for a Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 given LSP. Different formats and encodings of the sub-wavelength label should be supported, depending on the specific sub-wavelength technologies controlled by the GMPLS. Depending on how the sub-wavelength network resources are assigned along the LSP route, the sub-wavelength label would be processed in different ways. When the sub-wavelength network resources assignment adopts the centralized model, a sub-wavelength label should be provided for each hop in the ERO of the LSP to be signaled. Therefore, the resources to be reserved along the LSP route would be selected and assigned before the signaling of the LSP, and the reservation would be performed hop-by-hop in the ERO processing during the LSP setup phase. On the other hand, when the sub-wavelength network resources assignment adopts the distributed model (see section 5.2 and 5.3), the selection of the resources would not be performed before the LSP signaling and the ERO would not contain any sub-wavelength label. One or more sub-wavelength labels might be signaled in the Suggested Label object [RFC3473] to provide, if needed, the downstream node with the upstream node's label preference. 4.1.2. Sub-wavelength traffic specification GMPLS signaling allows the inclusion of technology-specific parameters during the LSP setup, as described in [RFC3471][RFC3471]. In particular, when an LSP has to be established in a sub-wavelength optical network domain, a dedicated traffic profiling should be defined to describe the traffic characteristics of the sub-wavelength data flow, and identify network specific performance parameters (e.g. based on the sub-wavelength control parameters, such as burst durations, blockings, delays, etc.) In GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473], the SENDER_TSPEC object is used to describe the traffic parameters for the LSP being established, and allows for the inclusion of technology specific parameters. Therefore, a specific traffic profiling should be used in the sub- wavelength optical networks context, for two main purposes: o Identification of the requested LSP switching granularity, to distinguish among the different sub-wavelength technologies o Identification of the sub-wavelength traffic requirements and characteristics for the LSP to be signaled in the sub-wavelength Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 optical network domain In particular, due to the short-lived fast-paced nature of the sub- wavelength data flows, the sub-wavelength traffic characteristics for the LSP to be established should be described, at least, in terms of bandwidth and QoS (i.e. delay, jitter, etc.) requirements, such as: o Bandwidth information: to specify the bandwidth requested for the reservation of the LSP, e.g. indicating average and peak bandwidths associated to the sub-wavelength data flow traffic to reserve. o Delay information: to specify the end-to-end delay requirements for a burst of traffic to be transmitted across the sub-wavelength optical network from source to destination (e.g. in terms of average and maximum delays). o Jitter information: to specify the maximum acceptable variation of latency for the bursts of traffic transmitted in the sub- wavelength optical network. 4.2. Impact on GMPLS routing When an LSP has to be installed in a sub-wavelength optical network, the path computation process should find a suitable route for the requested connection. The selection of the end-to-end route (i.e. hops and links) should be performed at the GMPLS layer, while the sub-wavelength network resources assignment should be carried out by the sub-wavelength transport plane control functions. This means that the GMPLS routing protocol should be extended to advertise some aggregated sub-wavelength information to represent the actual availabilities in the transport plane, and allow the selection of the optimal end-to-end route. 4.2.1. Sub-wavelength network resource availability advertisement GMPLS routing [RFC4202][RFC4203] defines the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor to advertise switching capabilities and encoding formats supported by a given link. According to what stated in section 4.2, in a sub-wavelength optical network scenario the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor should support: o The new Sub-Wavelength Switching Capability defined to describe the time-shared use of a wavelength o The new LSP Encoding Types defined to identify the different sub- wavelength encoding formats Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 Moreover, per [RFC4203], the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor advertises also aggregated link information at the bandwidth level (i.e. Maximum LSP Bandwidth). It specifies the maximum bandwidth that a single LSP can reserve on that interface. However, rather than operating at the bandwidth level, the sub- wavelength enabled GMPLS should operate at least on a wavelength basis, and preferably on a sub-wavelength basis. Indeed, the distribution of wavelength and sub-wavelength availabilities is the key element to enable both GMPLS and path computation support of sub- wavelength switching optical networks. GMPLS routing extensions in support of Wavelength Switching Optical Networks (WSON) are currently under study, and the usage of the Available Labels sub-TLV to advertise the available wavelengths in a given link has been proposed in [WSON-Routing]. On the other hand, dedicated GMPLS routing extensions must be defined to advertise, for each wavelength, the TE parameters accounting the free wavelength capacity, according to the network resource modeling detailed in section 4.2. The distribution of the sub-wavelength availabilities should be used in addition to the Available Labels sub-TLV to further detail the time-shared usage of the single wavelengths, introducing a finer granularity. 5. Route computation and sub-wavelength resource assignment scenarios Based on the interworking models between GMPLS and the sub-wavelength switching control layer, three approaches for route computation can exist: o Centralized in both control planes o Centralized in GMPLS and distributed in the sub-wavelength switching control layer o Distributed in both control planes A key functional element in all the scenarios is the Path Computation Element (PCE), which may be centralized or distributed , and perform the computation of a set of potential routes between the source and destination sub-wavelength capable nodes, matching the specified service and end-to-end traffic parameters. For this purpose, the PCE should store a summarized view of the sub-wavelength network topology, detailed in terms of nodes, TE links, the related wavelengths and aggregated slots availabilities. This TE information may be dynamically updated in different ways, e.g. through IGP routing protocols, like OSPF-TE, properly extended. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 The PCE may interact with a sub-wavelength resource assignment entity, which operates in the sub-wavelength control layer and stores a detailed view of the slot/time-period utilization on all the links of the sub-wavelength network, and provides the logical representation of synchronized frames per link. The SLAE assigns the requested bandwidth on one of the potential routes, and may additionally guarantee both slot/time-period continuity constraint and wavelength-continuity constraint where needed. Specific aspects of the different architectural scenarios regarding the association of PCE and sub-wavelength resource assignment are described below. 5.1. Centralized PCE and centralized sub-wavelength resource assignment This case consists of GMPLS TED with complete network view of aggregated sub-wavelength information for route selection and complete view of sub-wavelength availability (e.g. time-slice(s) per wavelength per link). The process of both is concurrent, performed at the same location, and considers the assignment of route and sub- wavelength resource assignment for every link of an end-to-end LSP. The sub-wavelength assignment occurs before the actual LSP provisioning. 5.2. Centralized PCE and distributed sub-wavelength resource assignment This case differs from the first one on the aspect of distributed sub-wavelength assignment based on initial route calculations. As such, after the calculation of K possible paths (e.g. shortest paths) the sub-wavelength assignment is attempted on a hop-by-hop basis at sub-wavelength optical transport level. The sub-wavelength TED information on each node might consist of either only neighbor's link information or complete network information. 5.3. Distributed PCE and distributed sub-wavelength resource assignment In that case both route and sub-wavelength assignment happens in a distributed manner. As such each node calculates the possible next hops at GMPLS level and the sub-wavelength assignment uses such info to assign the available time-slices. Again the aggregate TED might consist of complete network resource availability information and sub-wavelength TED might consist of either neighbor or complete network information. In case of complete sub-wavelength TED information at each node the success ratio on provisioning LSPs might increase at the expense of increased routing information exchange at sub-wavelength transport control system. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 6. Security Considerations This document does not introduce new security issues; the considerations in [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [RFC3945] apply. GMPLS control of sub-wavelength switching assumes that users and devices attached to UNIs may behave maliciously, negligently, or incorrectly. Intra-provider control traffic is trusted to not be malicious. In general, these requirements are no different from the security requirements for operating any GMPLS network. Access to the trusted network will only occur through the protocols defined for the UNI or NNI or through protected management interfaces. When in-band GMPLS signaling is used for the control plane the security of the control plane and the data plane may affect each other. When out-of-band GMPLS signaling is used for the control plane the data plane security is decoupled from the control plane and therefore the security of the data plane has less impact on overall security. For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please refer to [RFC5920]. 7. IANA Considerations This document introduces the following requests for IANA action: o Assign a new Switching Type: "Sub-Wavelength" (suggested value TBD) in the GMPLS Signaling Parameters / Switching Types registry. o Assign new LSP Encoding Types for the different sub-wavelength switching technologies": o New error codes in the RSVP Parameters / Error Codes and Globally- Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry: 8. Contributing Authors Juan Pedro Fernandez-Palacios Gimenez Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo C/Ramon de la Cruz Madrid, 28006 Spain Phone: +34 91 3379037 Email: jpfpg@tid.es Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 Gino Carrozzo Nextworks via Turati 43/45 Pisa Italy Phone: Email: g.carrozzo@nextworks.it Dimitra Simeonidou University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester, Essex U.K. Phone: Email: dsimeo@essex.ac.uk 9. Acknowledgements This work has been partially supported by the EC through the IST STREP project MAINS (INFSO-ICT-247706). 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 2004. [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. [RFC5828] Fedyk, D., Berger, L., and L. Andersson, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework", RFC 5828, March 2010. [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 10.2. Informative References [CP-OBS-OCS] Hong, X., "Testbed of OBS/GMPLS interworking, WOBS 2009", 2009. [CP-OPS-OCS] Miyazawa, T., "Experimental Performance Evaluation of Control Mechanisms for Integrated Optical Packet- and Circuit-Switched Networks, IEEE GLOBECOM, FutNet05.1, pp.360-360, Miami, USA", 2010. [FTL] Simsarian, J., "Fast tunable lasers for optical routers and networks, CLEO/QELS 2006", 2006. [Fast-Switches] Zervas, E., "Multi-Granular Optical Cross-Connect: Design, Analysis and Demonstration IEEE Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 69-84", 2009. [Lambda-Convert] Lal, V., "Monolithic Wavelength Converters for High-Speed Packet-Switched Optical Networks JSTQE, 13, PP. 49-57", 2007. [OFS] Weichenberg, G. and V. Chan, "Design and Analysis of Optically Flow Switched Networks, IEEE/OSA Journal on Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 Optical Communications and Networking", Aug 2009. [OPS-Network1] Chiaroni, D., "Demonstration of the Interconnection of Two Optical Packet Rings with a Hybrid Optoelectronic Packet Router, PD3.5, ECOC", 2010. [OPS-Network2] Furukawa, H., "First Development of Integrated Optical Packet and Circuit Switching Node for New-Generation Networks, We.8.A.4, ECOC", 2010. [OPS-Network3] Fernandez-Palacios, J., "IP Offlloading over Multi- granular Photonic Switching Technologies, Mo.2.D.6, ECOC", 2010. [OPS-OLS-OBS] Yoo, S., "Optical packet and burst switching technologies for the future photonic Internet, J. Lightwave Technol., vol., no. 12, pp. 4468 4492", Dec 2006. [Tunable-Switch] Klonidis, D., "Fast and Widely Tunable Optical Packet Switching Scheme based on Tunable Laser and Dual-Pump Four-Wave Mixing, IEEE PTL, vol. 16, no. 5", May 2004. [Tunable-Trans] Dunne, J., "Optical Packet Switch and Transport: A New Metro Platform to Reduce Costs and Power by 50% to 75% While Simultaneously Increasing Deterministic Performance, WOBS 2009", 2009. [WSON-Routing] Zhang, F., Bernstein, G., and Y. Xu, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs), draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf-03.txt, March 2010.", 2010. [lambda-label] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- Switching Capable Label Switching Routers, work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-11.txt", 2011. Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Frwk for GMPLS in Sub-wavelength networks March 2011 Authors' Addresses Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Telefonica Ramon de la Cruz, 82-84 Madrid, 28006 Spain Phone: +34 913374013 Email: ogondio@tid.es Giacomo Bernini Nextworks via Turati 43/45 Pisa Italy Phone: Email: g.bernini@nextworks.it Georgios Zervas Univ of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester, Essex U.K. Phone: Email: gzerva@essex.ac.uk Mark Basham Intune Networks via Turati 43/45 Colchester U.K. Phone: Email: mark.basham@intunenetworks.com Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 18]