CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (KPNQwest) - Editor Internet Draft Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) - Editor Expiration Date: December 2002 Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel) Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel) Ayan Banerjee (Calient) Lou Berger (Movaz) Greg Bernstein (Ciena) Angela Chiu (Celion) John Drake (Calient) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave) Michele Fontana (Alcatel) Gert Grammel (Alcatel) Juergen Heiles (Siemens) Suresh Katukam (Cisco) Kireeti Kompella (Juniper) Jonathan P. Lang (Calient) Fong Liaw (Solas) Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent) Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium) Mike Raftelis (White Rock) Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Debanjan Saha (Tellium) Vishal Sharma (Metanoia) George Swallow (Cisco) Z. Bo Tang (Tellium) Eve Varma (Lucent) Maarten Vissers (Lucent) Yangguang Xu (Lucent) June 2002 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors 1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Abstract This document is a companion to the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the SONET/SDH technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. 1. Introduction Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-RSVP] describes RSVP-TE specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five classes of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [GMPLS-LDP]. This document presents details that are specific to SONET/SDH. Per [GMPLS-SIG], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH. The protocol specific formats, for the SDH/SONET-specific RSVP-TE objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities for SONET (ANSI T1.105) and SDH (ITU-T G.707) such as concatenation and transparency. Some extra non-standard capabilities are defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]. Other documents could further enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance, signaling for SDH over PDH (ITU-T G.832), or sub-STM-0 (ITU-T G.708) interfaces could be defined. The traffic parameters defined hereafter MUST be used when SONET/SDH is specified in the LSP Encoding Type field of a Generalized Label Request [GMPLS-SIG]. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 2 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH is organized as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signal Type | RCC | NCC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NVC | Multiplier (MT) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transparency (T) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Profile (P) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Annex 1 defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Signal Type (ST): 8 bits This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that comprises the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied successively on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal being actually requested for the LSP. Each transform is optional and must be ignored if zero, except MT that cannot be zero and is ignored if equal to one. Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order: - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal, resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal. - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the previous phase (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT]). - Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when requesting a frame as signal rather than an SPE or VC based signal (by using the Transparency field). - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the second phase, or on these signals combined with some transparency. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 3 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are: Value Type ----- ----------------- 1 VT1.5 SPE / VC-11 2 VT2 SPE / VC-12 3 VT3 SPE 4 VT6 SPE / VC-2 5 STS-1 SPE / VC-3 6 STS-3c SPE / VC-4 7 STS-1 / STM-0 (only when requesting transparency) 8 STS-3 / STM-1 (only when requesting transparency) 9 STS-12 / STM-4 (only when requesting transparency) 10 STS-48 / STM-16 (only when requesting transparency) 11 STS-192 / STM-64 (only when requesting transparency) 12 STS-768 / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency) A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs. This is done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH signaling. Appendix 1 adds one more signal type (optional). Refer to [GMPLS- SDH-SONET-EXT] for an extended set of signal type values beyond the signal types as defined in T1.105/G.707. Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits This field is used to request and sometimes negotiate (see [GMPLS-SDH-SONET-EXT]) the optional SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation of the Elementary Signal. This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the support of a particular type of contiguous concatenation. Several flags can be set at the same time to indicate a choice. These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use according to its own rules. A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document scope. A downstream node that doesnĘt support any of the concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it doesnĘt support contiguous concatenation at all. The upstream node knows which type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node chosen by looking at the position indicated by the first label and the number of label(s) as returned by the downstream node. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 4 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is requested. The following flag is defined: Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation. Flag 1 indicates that only the standard SONET/SDH contiguous concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707 is supported. Note that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for extensions, if not used they must be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of components is a multiple of three. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of contiguous concatenation types beyond the contiguous concatenation types as defined in T1.105/G.707. Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits This field indicates the number of identical SONET/SDH SPEs/VCs that are requested to be concatenated, as specified in the RCC field. Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the elementary signal to use must always be an STS-3c SPE signal type and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This allows also facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH. In particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs cannot not be requested because according to this specification, this type of signal must be coded using the STS-3c SPE signal type. Note 2: when requesting a transparent STM-N/STS-N signal limited to a single contiguously concatenated VC-4-Nc/STS-Nc- SPE, the signal type must be STM-N/STS-N, RCC with flag 1 and NCC set to 1. This field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when send, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value different from 0 must imply a number of components greater than 1. The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous concatenation being requested in the RCC field. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 5 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same type by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which signal types are defined in this document, i.e. VT1.5 SPE, VT2 SPE, VT3 SPE, VT6 SPE, STS-1 SPE, STS-3c SPE, VC-11, VC-12, VC-2, VC-3 or VC-4. This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual concatenation is requested. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of signals that can be virtually concatenated beyond the virtual concatenation as defined in T1.105/G.707. Multiplier (MT): 16 bits This field indicates the number of identical signals that are requested for the LSP, i.e. that form the Final Signal. These signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually concatenated signals. Note that all these signals belong thus to the same LSP. The distinction between the components of multiple virtually concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must describe the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the first virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe the second component (set of individual signals belonging to the second virtual concatenated signal) and so on. This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly one instance of a signal is being requested. Zero is an invalid value. Transparency (T): 32 bits This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations are necessarily valid. The default value for this field is zero, i.e. no transparency requested. Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this signaling specification, is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are part of the LOH. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 6 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using the following Signal Types: STM-0, STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM- 64, STM-256, STS-1, STS-3, STS-12, STS-48, STS-192, and STS- 768. At least one transparency type must be specified when requesting such a signal type. Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP. An ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these overhead fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR without any change. From the ingress and egress LSRs point of views, these fields must be seen as unmodified. Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the initiating and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate LSRs. The transparency field is used to request an LSP that supports the requested transparency type; it may also be used to setup the transparency process to be applied in each intermediate LSR. The different transparency flags are the following: Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer. Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer. Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Others flags are reserved, they should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding transparency is requested. Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency all other flags must be ignored. Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be adjusted. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for an extended set of transparency types beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707. Profile (P) This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring capabilities. No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD be set to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when received. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 7 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 In the future TLV based extensions may be created. 2.2. RSVP-TE Details For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The content of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The objects have the following class and type: For SONET ANSI T1.105 and SDH ITU-T G.707: SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (by IANA) SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (by IANA) There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC. Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, see [RFC2210]. For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. 2.3. CR-LDP Details For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The content of the TLV is defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is: TBA (by IANA). Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 8 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 3. SDH and SONET Labels SDH and SONET each define a multiplexing structure, with the SONET multiplex structure being a subset of the SDH multiplex structure. These two structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STM-N or an STS-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e. a VC-x, a VT-x SPE or an STS-x SPE. An SDH/SONET label will identify the exact position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular VC-x, VT-x SPE or STS-x SPE signal in a multiplexing structure. SDH and SONET labels are carried in the Generalized Label per [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP]. Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear after any possible interleaving. These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to create unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH multiplexing structure, the same format of label is used for SDH and SONET. As explained in [GMPLS-SIG], a label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is used. In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label. In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the Label field. This label identifies the lowest time-slot occupied by the contiguously concatenated signal. By lowest time-slot we mean the one having the lowest label when compared as integer values, i.e. the time-slot occupied by the first component signal of the concatenated signal encountered when descending the tree. In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all labels in the concatenation is given. Each label indicates the first time-slot occupied by a component of the virtually concatenated signal. The order of the labels must reflect the order of the payloads to concatenate (not the physical order of time-slots). The above representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a single (component) link; it imposes as such a restriction compared to the G.707/T1.105 recommendations. The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link. Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 9 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated). In case of multiplication (i.e. using the multiplier transform), the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the Final Signal is given. In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated signals, the first set of labels indicates the time- slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated signal, the second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied by the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above representation limits multiplication to remain within a single (component) link. The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET TDM-LSR link is: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | S | U | K | L | M | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in G.707 sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. Note that the higher order numbering scheme defined in G.707 sections 7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here. Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to indicate a non-significant or ignored field. When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received. When a hierarchy of SDH/SONET LSPs is used, an LSP with a given bandwidth can be used to carry lower order LSPs. The higher order SDH/SONET LSP behaves as a "virtual link" with a given bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SDH/SONET LSP can be established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e. the label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the higher order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that label is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e. the label is "S,U,K,0,0". For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs. In that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3 LSP for the lower order LSPs will have S, U and K set to zero, i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the signal allocated in that VC-3. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing VC- 12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used, i.e. per layer network signaling. The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows: 1. S=1->N is the index of a particular AUG-1/STS-3 inside an STM-N/STS-N multiplex. S is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and SONET STS-N (N>1) and must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 and STS-1. 2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular VC-3/STS-1 SPE within an AUG-1/STS-3. U is only significant for SDH STM-N (N>0) and SONET STS-N (N>1) and must be 0 and ignored for STM-0 and STS-1. 3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s and must be 0 and ignored in all other cases. 4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular TUG-2/VT Group within a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. L must be 0 and ignored in all other cases. 5. M is the index of a particular VC-1/VT-1.5, VT-2 or VT-3 SPE within a TUG-2/VT Group. M=1->2 indicates a specific VT-3 SPE inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST NOT be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3 with SDH. M=3->5 indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 SPE inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. M=6->9 indicates a specific VC-11/VT-1.5 SPE inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the SDH/SONET traffic parameters, i.e. a label by itself does not allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context sensitive). The S encoding is summarized in the following table: S SDH SONET ------------------------------------------------ 0 other other 1 1st AUG-1 1st STS-3 2 2nd AUG-1 2nd STS-3 3 3rd AUG-1 3rd STS-3 4 4rd AUG-1 4rd STS-3 : : : N Nth AUG-1 Nth STS-3 Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 11 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 The U encoding is summarized in the following table: U SDH AUG-1 SONET STS-3 ------------------------------------------------- 0 other other 1 1st VC-3 1st STS-1 SPE 2 2nd VC-3 2nd STS-1 SPE 3 3rd VC-3 3rd STS-1 SPE The K encoding is summarized in the following table: K SDH VC-4 --------------- 0 other 1 1st TUG-3 2 2nd TUG-3 3 3rd TUG-3 The L encoding is summarized in the following table: L SDH TUG-3 SDH VC-3 SONET STS-1 SPE ------------------------------------------------- 0 other other other 1 1st TUG-2 1st TUG-2 1st VTG 2 2nd TUG-2 2nd TUG-2 2nd VTG 3 3rd TUG-2 3rd TUG-2 3rd VTG 4 4th TUG-2 4th TUG-2 4th VTG 5 5th TUG-2 5th TUG-2 5th VTG 6 6th TUG-2 6th TUG-2 6th VTG 7 7th TUG-2 7th TUG-2 7th VTG The M encoding is summarized in the following table: M SDH TUG-2 SONET VTG ------------------------------------------------- 0 other other 1 - 1st VT-3 SPE 2 - 2nd VT-3 SPE 3 1st VC-12 1st VT-2 SPE 4 2nd VC-12 2nd VT-2 SPE 5 3rd VC-12 3rd VT-2 SPE 6 1st VC-11 1st VT-1.5 SPE 7 2nd VC-11 2nd VT-1.5 SPE 8 3rd VC-11 3rd VT-1.5 SPE 9 4th VC-11 4th VT-1.5 SPE Examples of labels: Example 1: the label for the VC-4/STS-3c in the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. Example 4: the label for the VC-2/VT-6 in the Lth-1 TUG-2/VT Group in the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth AUG-1/STS-3 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0. Example 5: the label for the 3rd VC-11/VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 TUG- 2/VT Group within the Uth-1 VC-3/STS-1 SPE within the Sth AUG- 1/STS-3 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. Example 6: the label for the VC-4-4c/STS-12c which uses the 9th AUG-1/STS-3 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the lowest label of the contiguously concatenated signal as explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the signal starts and the lowest part is not significant. In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to zero according to the field coding rules. For instance, when requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0. When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9. When a transparent STM-N/STS-3*N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) is requested, the label is not applicable and is set to zero. Refer to [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] for the label for the extended set of transparency types beyond the transparency types as defined in T1.105/G.707. 4. Acknowledgments Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing list where outstanding discussions took place. 5. Security Considerations This draft introduces no new security considerations to either [GMPLS-RSVP] or [GMPLS-LDP]. GMPLS security is described in section 11 of [GMPLS-SIG], in [CR-LDP] and in [RSVP-TE]. 6. IANA Considerations Three values have to be defined by IANA for this document (two RSVP C-Types and one LDP TLV Type): - A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (see section 2.2). Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 - A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (see section 2.2). - A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see section 2.3). 7. Intellectual Property Notice The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 8. Normative References [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-08.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P., Berger, L. et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt, April 2002. [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt, April 2002. [CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC3212, January, 2002. [RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services," RFC 2210, September 1997. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 14 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 9. Informative References [GMPLS-SONET-SDH-EXT] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D. et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching extensions to control non-standard SONET and SDH features", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-03.txt, June 2002. [GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou D. et al., " Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt, March 2002. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. 10. Contributors Contributors are listed by alphabetical order. Stefan Ansorge Alcatel Lorenzstrasse 10 70435 Stuttgart Germany Phone: +49 7 11 821 337 44 Email: Stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de Peter Ashwood-Smith Nortel Networks Corp. P.O. Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Canada Phone: +1 613 763 4534 Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com Ayan Banerjee Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972-3645 Email: abanerjee@calient.net Lou Berger Movaz Networks, Inc. 7926 Jones Branch Drive Suite 615 McLean VA, 22102 Phone: +1 703 847-1801 Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 15 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Email: lberger@movaz.com Greg Bernstein Ciena Corporation 10480 Ridgeview Court Cupertino, CA 94014 Phone: +1 408 366 4713 Email: greg@ciena.com Angela Chiu Celion Networks One Sheila Drive, Suite 2 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658 Phone: +1 732 747 9987 Email: angela.chiu@celion.com John Drake Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972 3720 Email: jdrake@calient.net Yanhe Fan Axiowave Networks, Inc. 100 Nickerson Road Marlborough, MA 01752 Phone: +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627 Email: yfan@axiowave.com Michele Fontana Alcatel Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7053 Email: michele.fontana@netit.alcatel.it Gert Grammel Alcatel Via Trento 30, I-20059 Vimercate, Italy Phone: +39 039 686-7060 Email: gert.grammel@netit.alcatel.it Juergen Heiles Siemens AG Hofmannstr. 51 D-81379 Munich, Germany Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 4 86 64 Email: Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de Suresh Katukam Cisco Systems 1450 N. McDowell Blvd, Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 16 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA e-mail: skatukam@cisco.com Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Email: kireeti@juniper.net Jonathan P. Lang Calient Networks 25 Castilian Goleta, CA 93117 Email: jplang@calient.net Fong Liaw Solas Research Email: fongliaw@yahoo.com Zhi-Wei Lin Lucent 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Phone: +1 732 949 5141 Email: zwlin@lucent.com Ben Mack-Crane Tellabs Email: Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com Dimitrios Pendarakis Tellium Phone: +1 (732) 923-4254 Email: dpendarakis@tellium.com Mike Raftelis White Rock Networks 18111 Preston Road Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75252 Phone: +1 (972)588-3728 Fax: +1 (972)588-3701 Email: Mraftelis@WhiteRockNetworks.com Bala Rajagopalan Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4237 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: braja@tellium.com Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 17 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Email: yakov@juniper.net Debanjan Saha Tellium Optical Systems 2 Crescent Place Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4264 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: dsaha@tellium.com Vishal Sharma Metanoia, Inc. 335 Elan Village Lane San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: +1 408 943 1794 Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 Voice: +1 978 244 8143 Email: swallow@cisco.com Z. Bo Tang Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Phone: +1 732 923 4231 Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Email: btang@tellium.com Eve Varma Lucent 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 Phone: +1 732 949 8559 Email: evarma@lucent.com Maarten Vissers Lucent Botterstraat 45 Postbus 18 1270 AA Huizen, Netherlands Email: mvissers@lucent.com Yangguang Xu Lucent 21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Email: xuyg@lucent.com Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 18 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 11. Editors Eric Mannie KPNQwest Terhulpsesteenweg 6A 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium Phone: +32 2 658 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 Email: eric.mannie@kpnqwest.com Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be 12. Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 19 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For VC-3 This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1: Value Type ----- --------------------- 20 "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" According to the G.707 standard a VC-3 in the TU-3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured in TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition, a VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required. A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching the content with its switch fabric. In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3 branch. This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type. This information can be used, for instance, by the penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination LSR. The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in any branch is suitable. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 20 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 Annex 1 - Examples This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH signals. As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency transforms can be applied. 1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of 7 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. 4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an STM-16 Elementary Signal. 5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-4 Elementary Signal. 6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with flag 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied to an STM-256 Elementary Signal. 7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0 (no contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 21 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-05.txt June, 2002 10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. 11. An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 9 (virtual concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 12. An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an STS-12 Elementary Signal. 13. 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with value 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal. 14. 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal. The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following table: Signal ST RCC NCC NVC MT T -------------------------------------------------------- VC-4 6 0 0 0 1 0 VC-4-7v 6 0 0 7 1 0 VC-4-16c 6 1 16 0 1 0 STM-16 MS transparent 10 0 0 0 1 2 STM-4 MS transparent 9 0 0 0 1 2 STM-256 MS transparent 12 0 0 0 1 2 STS-1 SPE 5 0 0 0 1 0 STS-3c SPE 6 0 0 0 1 0 STS-48c SPE 6 1 16 0 1 0 STS-1-3v SPE 5 0 0 3 1 0 STS-3c-9v SPE 6 0 0 9 1 0 STS-12 Section transparent 9 0 0 0 1 1 3 x STS-768c SPE 6 1 256 0 3 0 5 x VC-4-13v 6 0 0 13 5 0 Mannie & Papadimitriou Editors Internet-Draft December 2002 22