Network Working Group Y. Lee Internet Draft Huawei Intended status: Standard R. Casellas Expires: September 2011 CTTC C. Margaria NSN O. G. de Dios Telefonica March 4, 2011 PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext-01.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 September 4, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA 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. Abstract This draft provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Conventions used in this document 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 RFC-2119 0. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements........................6 2.1. Encoding of a new RWA path request........................7 2.1.1. Wavelength Range Constraint..........................9 2.1.2. Signal processing capability restrictions............9 2.1.2.1. MODULATION-FORMAT TLV..........................11 2.1.2.2. FEC TLV........................................11 2.1.3. New XRO sub-object: signal processing exclusion.....12 2.1.4. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion.........13 2.2. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply.............................13 2.3. Error Indicator..........................................14 2.4. NO-PATH Indicator........................................14 3. Manageability Considerations..................................15 3.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................15 3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module.............15 Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 3.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................16 3.4. Verifying Correct Operation..............................16 3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components16 3.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................16 4. Security Considerations.......................................16 5. IANA Considerations...........................................16 6. Acknowledgments...............................................17 7. References....................................................17 7.1. Normative References.....................................17 7.2. Informative References...................................17 8. Contributors..................................................19 Authors' Addresses...............................................19 Intellectual Property Statement..................................19 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................20 1. Introduction [RFC4655] defines the PCE based Architecture and explains how a Path Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network component that makes such a request and may be for instance an Optical Switching Element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can be located anywhere within the network, and may be within an optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) or Operational Support System (OSS), or may be an independent network server. The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol used between PCC and PCE, and may also be used between cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred to separate documents. This document provides the PCEP extension for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified in [PCE-RWA]. WSON refers to WDM based optical networks in which switching is performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal. In this document, it is assumed that wavelength converters require electrical signal regeneration. Consequently, WSONs can be transparent (A transparent optical network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one wavelength to Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 another, all within the optical domain) or translucent (3R regenerators are sparsely placed in the network). A LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators (typically with electronic regenerator and wavelength conversion). Each transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical paths). +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | |I1 | | | | | | I2| | | |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ [X LSC] [LSC LSC] [LSC LSC] [LSC X] SwCap <-------> <-------> <-----> <-------> <-----------------------> <----------------------> Transparent Segment Transparent Segment <-------------------------------------------------> LSC LSP Figure 1: Illustration of a LSC LSP and transparent segments Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP need not operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link cannot be assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both signals interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional multiplexing techniques such as polarization based multiplexing are not addressed in this document since the physical layer aspects are not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper wavelength on a lightpath is an essential requirement in the optical path computation process. When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may use different wavelengths on different links along its route from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted that wavelength converters may be limited due to their relatively high cost, while the number of WDM channels that Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 can be supported in a fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes that cannot perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited wavelength conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion abilities, wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint to be considered in all lightpath computation. [Ed note: in general, WSON LSC may not be the only switching layer with switching constraints. From a GMPLS/PCEP perspective, wavelength assignment corresponds to label allocation. This document should align with GMPLS extensions for PCEP. Wavelength restrictions and constraints should be formulated in terms of labels (i.e. LABEL_SET, SUGGESTED_LABEL, UPSTREAM_LABEL, etc.) [Ed Note] For example, within a translucent WSON, a LSC LSP may be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 transparent segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint applies (i.e. the same unique wavelength MUST be assigned to the LSP at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would be [X X] where X < LSC (PSC, TDM, ...). In addition to those label switching constraints, each optical path is constrained by the optical signal quality. The optical signal quality depends first on the optical sender and receiver capabilities. Second contributors to optical signal constraints are the optical elements used on the path (optical fibers, amplifiers, boosters, optical components). All those elements have an impact on the optical signal quality that limits the ability of the optical path to carry traffic. In order to improve the signal quality and limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing are used. Those modulation properties contribute not only to optical signal quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and receiver, as they should have matching signal processing capabilities. The optical modulation properties, also referred to as signal compatibility, are already considered in signaling in [RWA-Encode] and [WSON-OSPF]. This document includes signal compatibility constraint as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and FEC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the optical path across all optical elements. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part of RWA path computation. See [WSON-Imp] and [PSVP-Imp] for more information on optical impairments and GMPLS. . Listed below are some relevant drafts addressed in the IETF CCAMP WG. . WSON RWA Framework: o draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework . Label switching constraints: o draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode o draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode o draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info . Signal processing capabilities: o draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode o draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf o draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling . Optical Impairment: o draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments o draft-agraz-ccamp-wson-impairment-rsvp o draft-eb-ccamp-ospf-wson-impairments The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655]. 2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements have been specified in [PCE-RWA] and the PCEP extensions that are going to be specified in this document based on this architecture. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 +----------------------------+ +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | | | | |Routing| |WA| | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | | | | +-----+ | PCE | +----------------------------+ Figure 2: Combined Process (R&WA) architecture 2.1. Encoding of a new RWA path request The current RP object is used to indicate routing related information in a new path request per [RFC5440]. Since a new RWA path request involves both routing and wavelength assignment, the wavelength assignment related information in the request SHOULD be coupled in the path request. [Ed note: align with [GMPLS-PCEP] in the sense that Wavelength Assignment is a particular case of Label Allocation] Label allocation can be performed by the PCE by different means: a) By means of Explicit Label Control, in the sense that one (or two) allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject. b) By means of a Suggested Label (and, for bidirectional LSPs, an Upstream Label) provided by the PCE c) By means of a Label Set, containing one or more allocated Labels, provided by the PCE. Note that in the b) and c) cases, except when c) includes only one Label, the label allocation can be considered an optimization or suggestion, allowing to be completed with distributed label allocation (performed during signaling). Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation, including vendor-specific approaches. The format of a PCReq message after incorporating the WA object is as follows: ::= [] Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 Where: ::=[] ::= [other optional objects...] Note: if WA object is present in the request, the WA object MUST be encoded after the ENDPOINTS object. The format of the Wavelength Assignment (WA) object body is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags |E| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Optional TLVs // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: WA Object Body Format Flags (32 bits) The following new flags SHOULD be set o E (Explicit - 1 bit): When E bit is set to 1, this indicates that the label assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is, the selected way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of a computed LSP. Otherwise, the label assigned by the PCE needs not be explicit (i.e., in the form of label sets). This is to allow the distributed WA. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 2.1.1. Wavelength Range Constraint For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester (PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints. Note that if the LSP LSC spans different segments, the PCE MUST have mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions of the involved wavelength converters / regenerators, e.g. by means of the IGP. Even if the PCE knows the tenability of the transmitter, the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints to the request. [Ed Note: to align with [PCEP-GMPLS] WA TLVs: *) WA_PREFERENCES_TLV (TBD) - Allow FF, LF, Random, vendor-specific *) IPv4_ADDRESS_TLV | IPv6_ADDRESS_TLV | UNNUMBERED_IF_ID_TLV *) LABEL_SET_TLV The Wavelength is defined in [Lambda-Label] 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Grid | C.S | Identifier | n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ See [Lambda-Label] for a description of Grid, C.S, Identifier and n. Note that each 32 bit Wavelength Field is designated to represent one wavelength restriction on the associated link identifier. 2.1.2. Signal processing capability restrictions Path computation for WSON include the check of signal processing capabilities, those capability MAY be provided by the IGP, however this is not a MUST. Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 additional restrictions for those signal compatibility, either on the endpoint or any given link. The supported signal processing capabilities are the one described in [RWA-Info]: . Modulation Type List . FEC Type List . Bit rate . Client signal The Bit-rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object. The client signal information can be expressed in the [PCEP-Layer] REQ-ADAP-CAP object. In order to support the Modulation and FEC information two new TLV are introduced as endpoint-restriction in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint: . Modulation restriction TLV . FEC restriction TLV. The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follow: ::= | | [] Where signal-compatibility-restriction ::= | The MODULATION-FORMAT and FEC TLV are described in the following sections. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 2.1.2.1. MODULATION-FORMAT TLV This optional TLV represents a modulation format restriction. This TLV MAY appear more than once in the endpoint-restriction. The TLV type is TBD, recommended value 17. The TLV data is defined as follow: 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|I| Modulation ID | Reserved |X| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Modulation ID/S bit dependent body | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The format follows the definition from [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.1 with the exception that the modulation length is already represented in the TLV Length field. The S and I bit are set as described in [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.1. The Modulation ID is as defined in [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.1. The X bit is set to 1 to exclude the Modulation format, the X bit is set to 0 to include the modulation format. The reserved bits MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignore on receive. The rest of the TLV is encoded following [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.1. 2.1.2.2. FEC TLV This optional TLV represents a FEC restriction. This TLV MAY appear more than once in the endpoint-restriction. The TLV type is TBD, recommended value 18. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 The TLV data is defined as follow: 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|I| FEC ID | Reserved |X| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FEC ID/S bit dependent body | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The format follows the definition from [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.2 with the exception that the FEC length is already represented in the TLV Length field. The S and I bit are set as described in [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.2. The FEC ID is as defined in [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.2. The X bit is set to 1 to exclude the FEC; the X bit is set to 0 to include the FEC. The reserved bits MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignore on receive. The rest of the TLV is encoded following [WSON-Encode] section 4.2.2. 2.1.3. New XRO sub-object: signal processing exclusion The endpoint restriction only applies to the END-POINTS object. The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude a signal processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation. In order to support the exclusion a new XRO sub-object is defined: the signal processing exclusion: 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 Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |X| Type = X | Length | Reserved | Attribute | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-sub objects | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node). The sub-sub objects are encoded as in RSVP signaling definition [WSON-Sign]. 2.1.4. IRO sub-object: signal processing inclusion Similar to the XRO sub-object the PCC/PCE should be able to include a signal processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation. This is supported by adding the sub-object "processing" defined for ERO in [WSON-Sign] to the PCEP IRO object. 2.2. Encoding of a RWA Path Reply The ERO is used to encode the path of a TE LSP through the network. The ERO is carried within a given path of a PCEP response, which is in turn carried in a PCRep message to provide the computed TE LSP if the path computation was successful. The preferred way to convey the allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003]. In order to encode wavelength assignment, the Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object needs to be employed to be able to specify wavelength assignment. Since each segment of the computed optical path is associated with wavelength assignment, the WA Object should be aligned with the ERO object. [Ed note: to align with [PCEP-GMPLS] the response WA MAY also include * SUGGESTED_LABEL_TLV * UPSTREAM_LABEL_TLV Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 * LABEL_SET_TLV specifying the allocated labels according to the requested policies] 2.3. Error Indicator To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object: A new Error-Type (TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows: o Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RWA request and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an Error-value(Error- value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The corresponding RWA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC. o Error-Type=TBD; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RWA request and the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=15) and an Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing the request. The corresponding RWA computation MUST be cancelled at the PCC. 2.4. NO-PATH Indicator To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the PCRep message. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in [RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide additional information about why a path computation has failed. Two new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object. o Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was found that meets all the constraints associated with RWA. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 o Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicates that no wavelength was assigned to at least one hop of the route in the response. o Bit TDB: When set, the PCE indicate that no path was found satisfying the signal compatibility constraints. 3. Manageability Considerations Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with PCE must address the following considerations: 3.1. Control of Function and Policy In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of [PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following PCEP session parameters on a PCC: o The ability to send a WSON RWA request. In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of [PCEP], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following PCEP session parameters on a PCE: o The support for WSON RWA. o A set of WSON RWA specific policies (authorized sender, request rate limiter, etc). These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. 3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module Extensions to the PCEP MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB] should be defined, so as to cover the WSON RWA information introduced in this document. A future revision of this document will list the information that should be added to the MIB module. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 3.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. 3.4. Verifying Correct Operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification requirements in addition to those already listed in section 8.4 of [RFC5440] 3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used to advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. 3.6. Impact on Network Operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network operation requirements in addition to those already listed in section 8.6 of [PCEP]. 4. Security Considerations This document has no requirement for a change to the security models within PCEP [PCEP]. However the additional information distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. Consideration should be given to securing this information. 5. IANA Considerations A future revision of this document will present requests to IANA for codepoint allocation. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 6. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March 2009. 7.2. Informative References [PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions for GMPLS", draft- ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 [PCEP-Layer] Oki, Takeda, Le Roux, and Farrel, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", draft- ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, work in progress. [WSON-Frame] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), and W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson- framework, work in progress. [PCE-RWA] Lee, Y., et. al., "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing- wavelength, work in progress. [Lambda-Label] Tomohiro, O. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels, work in progress. [WSON-Sign] Bernstein et al," Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson- signaling, work in progress. [WSON-OSPF] Lee and Bernstein," OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal- compatibility-ospf, work in progress. [RWA-Info] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info, work in progress. [RWA-Encode] Bernstein and Lee, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode, work in progress. [WSON-Imp] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, G. Martinelli, "A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson- impairments, work in progress. [RSVP-Imp] agraz, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of Impairment Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks WSONs)", draft-agraz-ccamp-wson- impairment-rsvp, work in progress. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 [OSPF-Imp] Bellagamba, et al., "OSPF Extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments", draft- eb-ccamp-ospf-wson-impairments, work in progress. 8. Contributors Authors' Addresses Young Lee Huawei Technologies 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 Plano, TX 75075, USA Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Ramon Casellas CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss 7 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) Spain Phone: (34) 936452916 Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Cyril Margaria Nokia Siemens Networks St Martin Strasse 76 Munich, 81541 Germany Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo C/ Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28043 Spain Phone: +34 91 3374013 Email: ogondio@tid.es Intellectual Property Statement The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 19] Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for WSON RWA March 2011 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Lee & Casellas Expires September 4, 2011 [Page 20]