Internet Engineering Task Force                           P. Peloso, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track                           G. Martinelli
Expires: December 12, 2011                                         Cisco
                                                               J. Meuric
                                                          France Telecom
                                                             C. Margaria
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                           June 10, 2011


    OSPF-TE Extensions for WSON-specific Network Element Constraints
                  draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03

Abstract

   The original content of this internet draft was to propose some
   extentions to OSPF encoding in the context of Wavelength Switched
   Optical Networks, especially for internal constraints of optical
   network elements.  General description can be found in the framework
   document.

   This update of the document still aims at specifying the detailled
   structure of OSPF LSAs for WSONs.  Nevertheless, the proposed LSA
   layout slightly differs from the current content of the information
   model and encodings drafts.  As a result, the following sections
   hilglight the differences between both approaches and summarize why
   the authors think these CCAMP's drafts would benefit from an update
   according to the proposed description.

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 December 12, 2011.

Copyright Notice



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Information Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Node Information (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1.  Connectivity Matrix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  Port Label Restrictions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.3.  Shared Risk Node Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Node Information (WSON specific) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.1.  Label Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.2.  Resource Pools, Resource Blocks and Resource
               Description Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.3.  Resource Pool Accessibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.4.  Resource Pool ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.2.5.  Resource Block State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.2.6.  Resource Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.2.7.  Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.2.8.  Shared Access Available Wavelengths  . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.3.  Link Information (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   3.  Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     3.1.  Node related generic encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.1.1.  Connectivity Matrix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.1.2.  Port Label Restrictions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.1.3.  Shared Risk Node Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.2.  Node related WSON specific encodings . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.2.1.  Label Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.2.2.  Id Set Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       3.2.3.  Resource Pool Accessibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       3.2.4.  Resource Block State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.2.5.  Resource Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.2.6.  Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.2.7.  Shared Access Available Wavelengths  . . . . . . . . . 27
       3.2.8.  Resource Pool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


       3.2.9.  Resource Description Container . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     3.3.  Link related encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   4.  OSPF-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     4.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     4.2.  Link top level TLV (Generic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     4.3.  Node Attribute top level TLV (Generic) . . . . . . . . . . 31
     4.4.  Resource Pool top level TLV (WSON-specific)  . . . . . . . 31
       4.4.1.  Resource Description sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     4.5.  Resource Description Container top level TLV
           (WSON-specific)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   5.  Solution(s) Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     5.1.  RBNFs Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     5.2.  Depiction of the considered cases for evaluation . . . . . 34
     5.3.  Comparing evaluation of the solutions  . . . . . . . . . . 36
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40




























Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


1.  Introduction

   The original content of this internet draft was to propose some
   extentions to OSPF encoding in the context of Wavelength Switched
   Optical Networks, especially for internal constraints of optical
   network elements.  General description can be found in the framework
   document [RFC6163].

   This update of the document still aims at specifying the detailled
   structure of OSPF LSAs for WSONs.  Nevertheless, the proposed LSA
   layout slightly differs from the current content of the information
   model [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info] and encodings
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] drafts.  As a result, the following
   sections highlight the differences between both approaches and
   summarize why the authors think these CCAMP's drafts would benefit
   from an update according to the proposed description.

   More specifically, the sections below follow the scope of current
   documents, namely information model, encodings and OSPF-TE
   extensions.  Building the latter allowed to identify some
   improvements which are described in the two former parts.  In both,
   the line has been drawn between the optical information that can be
   specified by using generic protocol extensions and the one requiring
   some WSON-specific objects, as agreed by the working group.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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.  Information Model

   This section provides a model of information needed by the routing
   and wavelength assignment (RWA) process in wavelength switched
   optical networks (WSONs).  The purpose of the information described
   in this model is to facilitate constrained optical path computation
   in WSONs.  This model takes into account compatibility constraints
   between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not
   include constraints due to optical impairments.

   It reports every WSON information model modification compared to
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info].  Alike this document, this section is
   organized in order to describe RWA specificities related to nodes and
   related to links.  The nodes specificities can once again be splitted
   between generic and WSON specific needs of description, while the
   links specificities can all fit inside the generic needs.



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   In the following, the reduced Backus-Naur form (RBNF) syntax of
   [RFC5511] is used to aid in defining the RWA information model.

2.1.  Node Information (General)

   The node information described here contains the relatively static
   information related to a WSON node.  This includes connectivity
   constraints amongst ports and wavelengths since WSON switches can
   exhibit asymmetric switching properties.  These connectivity matrices
   are included with the node information while the switched and fixed
   port wavelength constraints are included with the link information.
   Formally,

   <Node_Information> ::= <Node_ID> [<ConnectivityMatrix>...]
       [<Port_Label_Restrictions>...][<SharedRiskNodeGroup>]

   Where the Node_ID would be an appropriate identifier for the node
   within the WSON RWA context.  In order to describe complex node
   structures, multiple connectivity matrices may be used to describe
   all the constraints.

2.1.1.  Connectivity Matrix

   The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the
   potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches (e.g.  ROADMs
   and such) or fixed connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a
   multiplexer.  Note that this matrix does not represent any particular
   internal blocking behavior but indicates which ingress ports and
   wavelengths could possibly be connected to a particular output port.

   The connectivity matrix is a conceptual M by N matrix representing
   the potential switched or fixed connectivity, where M represents the
   number of ingress ports and N the number of egress ports.  This is a
   "conceptual" matrix since the matrix tends to exhibit structure that
   allows for very compact representations that are useful for both
   transmission and path computation.

   Note that the connectivity matrix information element can be useful
   in any technology context where asymmetric switches are utilized.

   <ConnectivityMatrix> ::= <MatrixID> <ConnectType> <Matrix>

   Where

   MatrixID   is a unique identifier for the matrix.






Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   ConnectType  can be either 0 or 1 depending upon whether the
              connectivity is either fixed or potentially switched.

   Matrix     represents the fixed or switched connectivity in that
              Matrix(i, j) = 0 or 1 depending on whether ingress port i
              can connect to egress port j for one or more wavelengths.
              More explicitly implemented as,
              <Matrix> ::= (<IngressLinkSet> <EgressLinkSet>)...
              which is a list of pairs of sets of links identifiers,
              where the purpose of each pair is to define an association
              between ingress links and egress links, and for the sake
              of compactness, this is done with sets of links.

   Hence, the RBNF can also be described as:

   <ConnectivityMatrix> ::= <MatrixID> <ConnectType>
       (<IngressLinkSet> <EgressLinkSet>)...


   ------
   DELTA:
   No technical change, explicit detail of the content of <Matrix>

2.1.2.  Port Label Restrictions

   The port label restriction (PortLabelRestriction) represents the
   label restrictions associated either to links or to connectivity
   matrices.  They can either model:

   1.  The restrictions coming from various equipments composing the
       internal structure of a node (such as mux and demuxes).  These
       restrictions tell us which label may or may not be used between
       ports,

   2.  The restrictions coming from the internal structure of the link
       (such as amplifier which may have a limited amplification
       spectrum),

   and as such are relatively static.

   This plays an important role in fully characterizing a blocking
   switching device (e.g. a blocking WSON ROXC or ROADM), hence the port
   label restrictions are directly associated to a a given connectivity
   matrix.

   <PortLabelRestriction> ::= <MatrixID> <RestrictionType>
       [<RestrictionParameters>]




Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   ------
   DELTA:
   No change.

2.1.3.  Shared Risk Node Group

   SRNG (Shared risk group for nodes) is defined after the concept of a
   shared risk link group ([RFC4202]) transposed to the grouping of
   nodes.  A set of nodes may constitute a 'shared risk node group'
   (SRNG) if they share a resource whose failure may affect all nodes in
   the set.  (This is explained in [G.7715].  Typical risk groupings for
   nodes can include those nodes in the same building, within the same
   city, or geographic region).

   A node may belong to multiple SRNGs.  Thus the SRNG Information
   describes a list of SRNGs that the node belongs to.  An SRNG is
   identified by a 32 bit number that is unique within an IGP domain.
   The SRNG Information is an unordered list of SRNGs that the node
   belongs to.

   If an LSR is required to have multiple diversely routed LSPs to
   another LSR, the path computation should attempt to route the paths
   so that they do not have any links nor any nodes in common, and such
   that the path SRNGs and SRLGs are disjoint.

   The SRNG Information may start with a configured value, in which case
   it does not change over time, unless reconfigured.

   The SRNG Information is optional and if a Link State Advertisement
   doesn't carry the SRNG Information, then it means that SRNG of that
   nodes is unknown.


   ------
   DELTA:
   No technical change.

2.2.  Node Information (WSON specific)

   As presented in [RFC6163] a WSON node may contain electro-optical
   subsystems such as regenerators, wavelength converters or entire
   switching subsystems.  The model present here can be used in
   characterizing the accessibility and availability of limited
   resources such as regenerators or wavelength converters as well as
   WSON signal attribute constraints of electro-optical subsystems.  As
   such this information element is fairly specific to WSON
   technologies.




Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


2.2.1.  Label Restrictions

   This section is a preamble presenting the Label Restriction entity,
   which is refered many times later in this document.

   Wavelength constraint are used in different part of the information
   model, either as static constraints (in the resource pool as
   RPWvlConstraints, and the resource block IngressWaveConstraint and
   EgressWaveConstraint) or representing dynamic properties of a given
   element (SharedAccessWvls in resource pool).  In the GMPLS context
   Wavelengths are represented by Labels.

   The wavelength constraints used in this document, although having
   different semantic, refer to the same notion of list of wavelength.
   Those constraints apply in addition to either the incoming part of a
   device (or group of device), the outgoing part or both if the
   constraint is the same, which is for instance not unusual for static
   wavelength constraint.

   To support this we define in this section a LABEL_RESTRICTIONS
   encoding that carry a label set information and for which direction
   this label restriction is valid.  The directions considered is
   upstream, downstream or both.  The label set information is the one
   defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info] as AvailableLabel.

   This encoding is reused in different TLV or sub-TLV for different
   semantic but do not require to define a TLV per direction.


   ------
   DELTA:

   -   Define a generic information for label restrictions

   -   Reuse generic label set and provide a compact representation

2.2.2.  Resource Pools, Resource Blocks and Resource Description
        Containers

   A WSON node may include regenerators or wavelength converters
   arranged in shared pools.  As presented in [RFC6163] this can include
   OEO based WDM switches as well.  There are a number of different
   approaches used in the design of WDM switches containing regenerator
   or converter pools.  However, from the point of view of path
   computation the following need to be known:






Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   1.  The nodes that support regeneration or wavelength conversion.

   2.  The accessibility and availability of any OEO device / wavelength
       converter to convert from a given ingress wavelength on a
       particular ingress port to a desired egress wavelength on a
       particular egress port.

   3.  Limitations on the types of signals that can be converted and the
       conversions that can be performed.

   For modeling purposes and encoding efficiency identical processing
   resources such as regenerators or wavelength converters with
   identical limitations, and processing and accessibility constraints
   are grouped into "blocks".  Such blocks can consist of a single
   resource, though grouping resources into blocks leads to more
   efficient encodings.  Then, these resource blocks are gathered once
   more into resource pool, for which the blocks share the same
   accessibility constraints.

   Definitions:

   -   Resource Block: A group of resources sharing both the same
       processing properties and the same accessibility constraints.
       Each Resource Block can contain a different number of ressources,
       but all the resources constituting the block are identical
       devices.

   -   Resource Pool: A group of resources sharing the same
       accessibility constraints, hence for the sake of efficient
       encoding a Resource Pool becomes a group of Resource Blocks
       sharing the same accessibility constraints.  Each Resource Pool
       can contain a different number of blocks, each of different size,
       but all the devices in the pool are subject to the same
       accessibility constraints regarding the way these are linked to
       ingress and egress links of the WSON node containing the pool.
       One of the inherent reason for that being their being multiplexed
       on a given piece of equipment (like an Optical Amplifier, a
       splitter, a Wavelength Selective Switch port, a length of
       fiber...), which has some inherent implication on the related
       information model.

   The following picture represents the model of WSON nodes with the
   help of Resource Blocks and Resource Pools entities.








Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


                               +-----------+
        I1  +-----------+      |   RP #1   |      +-----------+ E1
       ---->|           |      | +-------+ |      |           +---->
        I2  |           |      | | Rb #1 | |      |           | E2
       ---->|           |      | +-------+ |      |           +---->
            |           |      | +-------+ |      |           |
            | Resource  +------+ |       | +------+ Resource  |
            | Ingress   |      | | Rb #2 | |      | Egress    |
            | Connectiv |      | |       | |      | Connectiv |
            | Matrix    |      | +-------+ |      | Matrix    |
            |           |      +-----------+      |           |
            |           |      +-----------+      |           |
        I3  |           |      |   RP #2   |      |           | E3
       ---->|           |      | +-------+ |      |           +---->
        I4  |           |      | | Rb #3 | |      |           | E4
       ---->|           +------+ +-------+ +------+           +---->
        IN  |           |      | +-------+ |      |           | EM
       ---->|           |      | | Rb #P | |      |           +---->
            |           |      | +-------+ |      |           |
            +-----------+      +-----------+      +-----------+

                                 Figure 1

   This figure shows a Resource Ingress Connectivity Matrix and another
   one of the egress, the model from [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info] gathers
   both these connectivity matrix inside a Resource Pool Accessibility
   item, which would lead to the following definition of a Resource
   Pool.

   <ResourcePool> ::= <ResourcePoolID> [<ResourceDescription>]...
       [<ResourcePoolAccessibility>] [<ResourcePoolWvlConstraints>]...
       [<SharedAccessWvls>]... [<ResourceBlockState>]...

   -   ResourcePoolID is used to identify the pool,

   -   ResourceDescriptions are used to define the features of each type
       of resources held inside the pool,

   -   ResourcePoolAccessibility is meant to define the spatial
       connectivity constraints between the pool and the incoming and
       outgoing links of the node,

   -   ResourcePoolWvlConstraints may be used to define the structural
       (static) spectral constraints of accessibility of the pool,







Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   -   SharedAccessWvls should be used to provide the dynamic spectral
       availability coming from the usage of wavelengths by activated
       resources inside the pool,

   -   ResourceBlockStates are used to provide the dynamic availability
       of resources inside the pool.

   Actually as stated in Section 2.2.3, it is more efficient to use the
   node's own connectivity matrix to embed this kind of information with
   the one of the incoming and outgoing links of the nodes, hence the
   model simplifies itself into:

   <ResourcePool> ::= <ResourcePoolID> [<ResourceDescription>]...
       [<ResourcePoolWvlConstraints>]... [<SharedAccessWvls>]...
       [<ResourceBlockState>]...

   As this document means to have one ResourcePool entity per physical
   pool of resources inside the node, it can be observed that when a
   node contains multiple pools of resources, these ones are likely to
   share type of resources, hence their modeled respresentations are
   holding the same ResourceDescription entities.  In order to avoid
   unnecessary information flooding, this document offers the
   opportunity to extract from the ResourcePool all these
   ResourceDescriptions and gather them inside a dedicated entity, that
   is named Resource Description Container.

   which provides the alternative model of ResourcePool (which is
   consistent with the previous one, as the ResourceDescriptions were
   already optional:

   <ResourcePool> ::= <ResourcePoolID> [<SharedAccessWvls>]...
       [<ResourcePoolWvlConstraints>]... [<ResourceBlockState>]...

   and Resource Description Container, which is a list of Resource
   Descriptions:

   <ResourceDescriptionContainer> ::= <ResourceDescription>...


   ------
   DELTA:

   -   Introduced definition of Resource Pool.

   -   Introduced definition of Resource Pool ID.






Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   -   Introduced definition of Resource Description Container.

   -   Changed accordingly Figure 1 and 2 from
       [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info].

   -   Changed the RBNF from [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info].

   -   Changed the Resource Block Info into Resource Description (small
       semantic change, due to minor internal changes.

   -   Adapted some pieces of models which were related to Resource
       Block, to the Resource Pool level, namely: RPWvlConstraints

2.2.3.  Resource Pool Accessibility

   Every device inside a Resource Pool shares the same accessibility
   constraints, hence the accessibility is a property related to the
   pool.  In order to depict the accessibility of a given pool, two
   pieces of information needs to be described:

   -   Which ingress links of the node can be connected to the entry of
       the Resource Pool,

   -   Which egress links of the node can be connected to the exit of
       the Resource Pool.

   Following remarks can be made concerning these accessibility
   information:

   -   These information share the same nature as the one of the
       Connectivity Matrix (see Section 2.1.1),

   -   These information are relatively static, changing only when the
       switching fabric of the node is changing (either failure or
       upgrade),

   -   When a given node contains multiple Resource Pools, it is not
       unlikely that some of them share list of either ingress or egress
       links of the nodes to which they can be connected; hence it can
       be more efficient to gather the accessibility information related
       to every Resource Pool inside a single entity, instead of having
       a specific entity for each pool.

   Hence, the accessibility information of every Resource Pool are
   embedded together inside the node own's Connectivity Matrix.  The
   solution used to do that consists in using both Local Link
   Identifiers and Resource Pool Identifiers inside the Link Sets of the
   Connectivity Matrix.  To keep unchanged the definition of the Link



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Set, 32 bits unnumbered IDs for the Resource Pool are needed (see
   Section 2.2.4).  Thanks to this in the context of a node, the
   Connectivity Matrix is then providing associations between:

   -   On one side a set composed of a mix of: (1) ingress link(s) and
       (2) exit(s) of resource pool(s),

   -   On the other side a set composed of a mix of: (1) egress link(s)
       and (2) entry(ies) of resource pool(s).

   Then the RBNF for the Connectivity Matrix (see Section 2.1.1)
   becomes,

   <ConnectivityMatrix> ::= <MatrixID> <ConnectType>
       (<IngressSetOfMixedLink&Pool> <EgressSetOfMixedLink&PoolSet>)...

   The Resource Pool Accessibility information are optional, if not
   defined, Resource Pool is meant to have no accessibility constraints:
   from every node ingress port it's possible to reach the pool and the
   pool egress can reach every egress port of the node.


   ------
   DELTA:
   This section could be compared to the Resource Block Accessibility
   constraint, and this is a major change that is proposed here.

2.2.4.  Resource Pool ID

   Alike a GMPLS unnumbered link benefits from the definition of Link
   Local and Link Remote Identifiers defined in [RFC4202] a resource
   pool benefits from a Resource Pool ID.  For each Resource Pool, WSON
   node assigns one identifier to each side of the pool.  This
   identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the
   scope of the WSON node that assigns it, hence the Resource Pool ID is
   composed by a couple of unique numbers.

   Consider a (resource) pool inside WSON node A. WSON node A chooses
   two distincts identifiers for the pool (one for the ingress side and
   one for the egress side).  Considering these identifiers being unique
   inside the scope of the WSON node A, implies that: no other
   (resource) pool inside WSON node A may be assigned the value
   corresponding to any of these two identifiers, neither any
   (unnumbered) link between WSON node A and any other node may be
   assigned a link local identifier (from the WSON node A perspective)
   value corresponding to any of these two identifiers.

   Support for resource pools in routing includes carrying information



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   about the identifiers of these pools.  Specifically, when an LSR
   advertises a resource pool, the advertisement carries both the
   ingress and the egress identifiers of the link.

   <RPoolID> ::= <RESOURCE_INGRESS_ID> <RESOURCE_EGRESS_ID>

2.2.5.  Resource Block State

   The Resource Block State keep track of the current usage of a
   resource block within a resource pool.

   The state indicate for the resource the number of available resources
   and optionnaly the total number (or maximum number) of resources.
   decoupling ResourceDescription from the the ResourceBlock
   configuration and allowing a better aggregation of the
   ResourceDescription.  The state available in info model is the
   following:

   Resource Block State definition

   <ResourceBlockState> ::= <ResourceBlockID> [<CountMaxResources>]
       <CountAvailableResources>


   ------
   DELTA:
   This definition fo the Resource Block State allow to separate the
   total number of resources from the resource description (differing in
   this from [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info]).  This enable a sharing of the
   resource description between all the pools, while the other solution
   requires that each pool holds the same number of devices to share the
   same ResourceBlockDescription (see Section 2.2.6).

2.2.6.  Resource Description

   The resource block information contains the pieces of information
   needed to fully identify the resource block static and dynamic
   information.  The static information consist of the characteristics
   that do not depend on the LSPs using the resource block.  In
   particular the wavelength constraints are the one of the OEO and are
   independent of the LSPs. the static information is described by a
   ResourceDescription, which can be valid for several resource blocks,
   then referenced by their ResourceBlockID.

   The ResourceBlockID identifies a resource block, it is a node wide
   stable and unique identifier (inside the node context).  The
   ResourceBlockID is defined in the ResourceBlockState TLV held in the
   Resource Pool TLV and used in the Resource Description TLV.



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   <ResourceDescription> := <ResourceBlockID>... <InputConstraints>
       <ProcessingCapabilities> <OutputConstraints>

   with,

   <InputConstraints> ::= [<IngressWaveConstraint>] [<modulation-list>]
       [<fec-list>] [<rate-range-list>] [<client-signal-list>]

   <ProcessingCapabilities> ::= <RegenerationCapabilities>
       [<FaultPerfMon>] [<VendorSpecific>]

   <OutputConstraints> ::= [<EgressWaveConstraint>] [<modulation-list>]
       [<fec-list>]

   IngressWaveConstraint and EgressWaveConstraint are described in
   Section 2.2.7.  The modulation-list and fec-list represent the list
   of modulation formats and FEC encoding available within the resource
   block.  This information MAY be present in the advertisement, the
   absence of this information means that potentially all Modulation and
   FEC are accepted and possible cranckback may occur.


   ------
   DELTA:

   -   Split between static (can be in a separate LSA or in the resource
       pool) and dynamic information.

   -   The maximum number of resource is in the state to allow better
       summarization of the resourceDescription

   -   The static information is describing the properties, the
       ResourceDescription is more explicit than resourceInfo in this
       context

   -   Changed the RBNF from [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info], make use of
       generic label restriction for the wavelength restrictions.

2.2.7.  Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints

   This field defines any constraint at wavelength level within a
   resource pool, and is meaningful only when a subset of wavelengths
   could be configurable within the Pool.  This information is static
   since it depends on specific physical resources within the pools and
   changes only if there is a node reconfiguration (OEO pools added or
   removed from an optical node, change in the mux or demuxing devices).
   As there is an ingress side and an egress side of a pool, this item
   needs to modelize the wavelength usage on each side.



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   This field takes the format of a Label_Restrictions Section 2.2.1.
   At most two instances of this item can be needed: one for each sides
   (incoming / outgoing) of the pool.

   The field is optional, when this field is not present it means there
   are no specific wavelength constraints imposed by pool.  As an
   example this field is equivalent to the Maximum Bandwidth field
   defined within [RFC3630].  As the Maximum Bandwith represents the
   true link capacity, the RESOURCE_POOL_WAVELENGTH_CONSTRAINTS
   represent the set of wavelengths that can possibly be configured on
   the pool.
   Note that the usable set of wavelengths could be limited by other
   constraints: e.g. currently in-use wavelength (see Section 2.2.8) or
   due to OEO device constraint on compliant wavelengths (see Wavelength
   Constraints in Section 2.2.6).


   ------
   DELTA:
   Only wavelength constrain.  While physical constraints are grouped in
   another set.

2.2.8.  Shared Access Available Wavelengths

   The SHARED_ACCESS_AVAILABLE_WAVELENGTHS represents wavelength usage
   in a Resource Pool hence it is related with the Resource Pool dynamic
   state.

   If a wavelength is in use within a pool, the same wavelength cannot
   be reused in the same pool however the pool will be available for a
   different wavelength depending on free resource blocks (Resource Pool
   defintion as in Section 2.2.2).  As there is an ingress side and
   egress side of a pool, this item needs to modelize the wavelength
   usage on each side.  Hence, this representation automatically
   considers the case of wavelength conversion happening inside the
   pool.

   This field takes the format of a Label_Restrictions Section 2.2.1.
   At most two instances of this item can be needed: one for each sides
   (incoming / outgoing) of the pool.

   N.B.: Hence, SHARED_ACCESS_AVAILABLE_WAVELENGTHS has the same format
   as RESOURCE_POOL_WAVELENGTH_CONSTRAINTS defined in Section 2.2.7.


   ------
   DELTA:
   Only wavelength constraint.  While physical constraints are grouped



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   in another set.

2.3.  Link Information (General)

   Idem preceding drafts

   <LinkInfo> ::=  <LinkID> [<AdministrativeGroup>] [<InterfaceCapDesc>]
       [<Protection>] [<SRLG>...] [<TrafficEngineeringMetric>]
       [<PortLabelRestriction>...] [<AvailableWavelengths>]
       [<SharedBackupWavelengths>]


3.  Encoding

3.1.  Node related generic encodings

   In this section we propose modification to
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode].

3.1.1.  Connectivity Matrix

   The Connectivity Matrix Section 2.1.1 represents how ingress ports
   are connected to egress ports for network elements.  The switch and
   fixed connectivity matrices can be compactly represented in terms of
   a minimal list of ingress and egress port set pairs that have mutual
   connectivity (see section 2.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode]).

   TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Connectivity  |   MatrixID    |             Reserved          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Link Set A #1                         |
   :                               :                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Link Set B #1                         |
   :                               :                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Additional Link set pairs as needed     |
   :                     to specify connectivity                   :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Connectivity  is the device type.

        0: the device is fixed.

        1: the device is switched (e.g., ROADM/ROXC)

   MatrixID  represents the ID of the connectivity matrix and is an 8
        bit integer.  The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port
        wavelength constraints and should not be used to identify a
        connectivity matrix.

   LinkSet  Link Set A #1 and Link Set B #1 together represent a pair of
        link sets.  As stated in Section 2.2.3, both Link Set A and Link
        Set B MAY contain Resource Pool IDs.  There are two permitted
        combinations for the link set field parameter "dir" for Link Set
        A and B pairs:

        *  Link Set A dir=ingress, Link Set B dir=egress
           The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is
           that any signal that ingresses a link in set A can be
           potentially switched out of an egress link in set B.

        *  Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional
           The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is
           that any signal that ingresses on the links in set A can
           potentially egress on a link in set B, and any ingress signal
           on the links in set B can potentially egress on a link in set
           A.

   Link Set field encoding is defined in section 2.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode].

   See [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode] and its appendixes for
   examples of both types of encodings.


   ------
   DELTA:
   No change.

3.1.2.  Port Label Restrictions

   Port Label Restriction tells us what labels may or may not be used
   between ports of a node or onto a given link.

   The port label restriction of Section 2.1.2 can be encoded as a sub-
   TLV as follows.  More than one of these sub-TLVs may be needed to
   fully specify a complex matrix connectivity label constraint or a



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   link related restrictions.  When more than one of these sub-TLVs are
   present the resulting restriction is the intersection of the
   restrictions expressed in each sub-TLV.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   MatrixID    |RestrictionType|      Reserved/Parameter       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType     |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where

   MatrixID  is a reference to a unique identifier of a connectivity
        matrix.

   RestrictionType  can take the following values and meanings:

        0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction)

        1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction)

        2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label
           and width)

        3: SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT (Combination of SIMPLE_LABEL and
           CHANNEL_COUNT restriction.  The accompanying label set and
           channel count indicate labels permitted on the port and the
           maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used on
           the port)

        4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once
           amongst a set of specified ports)

   For description of the additional Restriction Parameters per
   RestrictionType, please refer to: section 2.6 of
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode]


   ------
   DELTA:
   No change.





Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


3.1.3.  Shared Risk Node Group

   This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Node Group information (see
   Section 2.1.3).

   Its length is the length of the list in octets.  The value is an
   unordered list of 32 bit numbers that are the SRNGs that the node
   belongs to.  The format of the value field is as shown below:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Shared Risk Node Group Value                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        ............                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Shared Risk Node Group Value                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The SRNG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Node Attribute
   TLV.


   ------
   DELTA:
   No technical change.

3.2.  Node related WSON specific encodings

   This section refer to [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]

3.2.1.  Label Restrictions

   Relatively to section 2.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode] the LABEL_SET field is
   here slightly modified in order to define a Label Restrictions field.













Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Action|U|D|    Num Labels     |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Base Label                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Additional fields as necessary per action              |
   :                                                               :
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Although it make sense only using the actions 0-Inclusive List,
   2-Inclusive Range or 4-Bitmap.  The U bit indicate a label set
   restriction valid at the upstream direction/incoming side of a
   resource pool/resource block.  The D bit indicate a label set
   restriction valid at the downstrean/outgoing side of a resource pool/
   resource block.  At least one of U or D bit MUST be set, both U and D
   bit MAY be set.


   ------
   DELTA:
   The Num Labels field become 10 bits and this leave room for 1024
   labels represented by this encoding.  This encoding will be reused in
   specific TLVs, in case more than 1024 labels are needed multiple
   fields within TLVs can be used.

3.2.2.  Id Set Field

   With the introduction of resource description describing properties
   for a group of resource block we need to efficiently represent a set
   of IDs.  To do so we introduce an IDSet field which has the same
   encoding as the LinkSet field defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode] but with a more generic
   description.















Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   ID Set Field

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Action     |Dir|  Format   |         Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Identifier 1                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                               :                               :
   :                               :                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Identifier N                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Action, Dir have the same encoding as in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode].  The Format field
   indicates the format and length of the Identifier:

      0 -- 32 Bit unnumbered identifier

      1 -- IPv4 identifier

      2 -- IPv6 identifier

   This field is used later to define a set of resource blocks (e.g. to
   list the resource blocks sharing the same resource description).

3.2.3.  Resource Pool Accessibility

   The Resource Pool Accessibility needs no encoding of its own.  As
   explained in the Section 2.2.3 this piece of information is merged
   inside the Connectivity Matrix object, which encoding is defined in
   Section 3.1.1, which is actually not impacted by this solution.

   Nota: The Link Sets held inside the Connectivity Matrix are composed
   of LINK_LOCAL_IDENTIFIERS (32 bits identifiers), and the solution to
   describe the Resource Pool Accessibility consists in using either
   RESOURCE_INGRESS_ID or RESOURCE_EGRESS_ID (also 32 bits identifiers)
   which are by definition different from the LINK_LOCAL_IDENTIFIERS
   (see Section 2.2.4).


   ------
   DELTA: A major change here as the content of this field are moved
   inside Connectivity Matrix.





Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


3.2.4.  Resource Block State

   This TLV indicate the state of a resource block as defined in
   Section 2.2.5.  It defines the ResourceBlockId, and provides the
   number of free resources and maximum in this resource block.  The
   ResourceBlockID field is a 32 bit node-wide identifier,

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       ResourceBlockID                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    CountAvailableResources                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      CountMaxResources                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The information of the maximum number of resource is optional, this
   is encoded with a value of 0 in the CountMaxResource field, or with a
   Length value set to 8 instead of 12.


   ------
   DELTA:
   This is an adaptation of the resource pool status that fits the new
   definition of resource description.

3.2.5.  Resource Description

   Resource Description sub-TLVs represent the information described in
   Section 2.2.6.

   The resource description TLV encoding follow the definition from
   Section 2.2.6 with a list of sub-sub TLV.















Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Resource Description TLV

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   ResourceBlockID Set Field                   |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Sub-TLVs (opt)                         |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The ResourceBlockID Set Field is encoded using the IDSet field
   encoding using the ResourceBlockID as identifier with format 0.

   The Sub-Sub TLVs are defined as follow, the order does not matter.
   Each of the Sub-Sub-TLV defined in this document MAY be repeated more
   than once, on receipt all Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be taken into account.
   The resulting information is the union of all the element of the Sub-
   Sub-TLVs (all Sub-Sub-TLVs of this document describe lists).  For
   example an implementation may choose to indicate that in total 4
   label can be used as 4 Label constraint Sub-Sub-tlv, each of them
   with 1 label.

   Info model             Type         Encoding
   IngressWaveConstraint  Label        Label restriction, see
                          Constraints  Section 3.2.1.
   Input modulation-list  Modulation   A list of Modulation Format
                          List         Fields, described in
                                       [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
                                       section 4.2.1.
   Input fec-list         FEC List     A list of FEC type, described in
                                       [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
                                       section 4.3.1.
   Input rate-range-list  Rate Range   A list of rate range field,
                                       described in
                                       [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
                                       section 4.4.1.
   Input                  Client       A list of GPids, described in
   client-signal-list     Signal List  [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
                                       section 4.5.








Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   ProcessingCapabilities Processing   A list of Processing Capabilities
                          Capabilities Fields, except processing cap
                                       "Number of Resources", described
                                       in
                                       [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
                                       section 4.6.1.
   EgressWaveConstraint   Label        Label restriction, see
                          Constraints  Section 3.2.1.
   Output modulation-list Modulation   see Input modulation-list
                          List
   Output fec-list        FEC List     see Input fec-list

       Resource description Sub-Sub-TLVs and relation to info model

   The Label Constraints Sub-Sub-TLV is used for IngressWaveConstraint
   and EgressWaveConstraint as the Label Restriction field carries the U
   and D bit to allow to distinguish a label restriction valid for
   incoming, outgoing or both.

   The Modulation List Sub-Sub-TLV is similarly used for the input and
   output modulation list.  The Sub-Sub-TLV contains a list of
   Modulation format field, which indicate if they are valid for the
   input (I bit set to 1) or for the output (I bit cleared).  The list
   of Modulation format field MUST contain at least one ingress FEC
   modulation format.  If no Egress modulation format is present in the
   list it is implied that no modulation format conversion is
   impossible, the egress modulation list is the same as the ingress
   modulation list and modulation format is not performed.

   The FEC list Sub-Sub-TLV is also representing both Input and Output
   FEC list.  The Sub-Sub-TLV is defined as a list of FEC Fields,
   conceptually being Sub-Sub-Sub-TLVs indicating via the I bit if they
   are valid for ingress or egress.  At least one ingress FEC MUST be
   present in the list, if no egress modulation format is present in the
   list it is implied that the egress FEC list is the same as the
   ingress FEC list.  In such case FEC format conversion MAY be
   performed.

   The Processing Capabilities Sub-Sub-TLV is the same as in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] section 4.6.1. except for the
   maximum number of resource which is represented in the
   ResourceBlockState.  The FEC and Modulation format conversion
   capabilities are expressed via the Modulation and FEC list by not
   including any egress modulation/fec in the respective lists.

   Bit-Rate Range and Client Signal lists are unchanged from
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]




Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   ------
   DELTA:

   -   use a common TLV for the label restriction

   -   use a common TLV for the FEC list

   -   use a common TLV for the Modulation format list

   -   re-use indirectly (via ID Set) the general encoding LinkSet for
       RBlockId set

   -   More explicit statement on FEC and Modulation format conversion
       capabilities

3.2.6.  Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints

   This TLV is used to describe static wavelength constraint, it follows
   the encoding of Label_Restrictions field Section 3.2.1

   RESOURCE_POOL_WAVELENGTH_CONSTRAINTS TLV

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Label_Restrictions field(s)                   |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Label_Restrictions field might be repeased several times
   depending on the U and D bit flags.  In case multiple fields with the
   same U and D bits set to 1, the final resulting constrain will be the
   intersection of all Label_Restrictions.  If multiple TLVs are present
   the resulting constraint is the intersection of all the TLV.

   Example below:

   -   No RESOURCE_POOL_WAVELENGTH_CONSTRAINTS TLV meaning that these
       type of constraints are not described.

   -   A TLV present with one Label_Restrictions field with both the U
       or D bits MUST be set to 1.  Which means the same constrains
       apply to both sides of the pool.






Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   -   A TLV present with three Label_Restrictions field presents, one
       field with U=1 so applicable upstream.  The two other fields with
       D=1 so applicable downstream


   ------
   DELTA: Small delta, just using the add-on bits to provide a
   direction/side semantic.

3.2.7.  Shared Access Available Wavelengths

   This TLV is used to describe dynamic wavelength availability, it
   follows the encoding of Label_Restrictions field.  Section 3.2.1

   SHARED_ACCESS_AVAILABLE_WAVELENGTH TLV

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Label_Restrictions field(s)                   |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The same rules and usage defined in Section 3.2.6 apply here.

3.2.8.  Resource Pool

   The RESOURCE_POOL TLV contains the preceding TLVs.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     RESOURCE_INGRESS_ID                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     RESOURCE_EGRESS_ID                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Sub-TLVs as needed (Opt)                     |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+








Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   List of possible Sub-TLVs:

   Name                                 Static/Dynamic
   Resource Description                     Static
   Resource Block State                     Dynamic
   Shared Access Available Wavelength       Dynamic
   Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints     Static


   ------
   DELTA:
   Similar to Resource Pool inside [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] with
   a different internal layout that allows for multiple instances.

3.2.9.  Resource Description Container

   The RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER is a list of RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION.
   This one MAY be used to extract the static content of the previous
   TLV, in order to hold all this content inside this purposely defined
   static TLV.  Then each one can be in separatly flooded entities (e.g.
   in separated LSAs see Section 4.1.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type                |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION                      |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION                      |
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   ------
   DELTA:
   New item.

3.3.  Link related encodings

   This section does not differ from the equivalent in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode]






Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


4.  OSPF-TE Extensions

   This section handles OSPF-TE extensions.

   It starts with introducing the top view of the extensions provided by
   this draft.  Then a sub-section dedicated for each top level TLV
   details the extensions relevant for this top level TLV.

4.1.  Introduction

   This introduction provides the layout of the preceding information
   model (Section 2) and encodings (Section 3) into top-level TLVs of
   opaque LSAs.

   [RFC3630] introduces Link top level TLV (type 2).  This document
   extends its content with the encodings depicted in Section 3.3.
   These extensions offer the capability to advertise restrictions on
   the list of available labels.
   N.B.: This capability is specifically useful when these labels have a
   network wide semantic like suggested in a WSON context.

   [RFC5786] introduces Node Attribute top level TLV (type 5).  This
   document extends its content with the encodings depicted in
   Section 3.1.  These extensions offer the capability to advertise
   restrictions on the switching capabilities of the node.
   N.B.: This TLV is unique for a given node and contains static
   information only, hence no more than one LSA per node is expected to
   host such a TLV.

   This document introduces a new top level TLV named RESOURCE_POOL
   (type value to be defined), which encodings are depicted in
   Section 3.2.  RESOURCE_POOL TLV offers the capability to advertise
   one or multiple pools of OEO devices held in a given node.  This
   object can carry resource descriptions, the available resources
   inside the pool(s) and the availability of wavelengths to reach the
   pool (refer to pool definition inside Section 2.2.2).
   N.B.: A LSA can contain more than one RESOURCE_POOL top level TLV
   (allowing one LSA to advertise the description of all the pools of
   the originating node).  Alternatively, a node can originate more than
   one LSA containing each RESOURCE_POOL top level TLVs (allowing each
   LSA to advertise an individual pool).  In that case all the
   RESOURCE_POOL originated by the same node MUST have different
   RESOURCE_POOL_ID.  As most of the information contained inside a
   RESOURCE_POOL are dynamic, an implementer may well choose to define
   one LSA per pool of resources in order to reduce the quantity of
   information flooded upon change in resource usage.

   This document introduces another new top level TLV named



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER (type value to be defined), which
   encoding is depicted in Section 3.2.9.
   RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER TLV offers the capability to advertise
   a list of RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION valid in the scope of the originating
   node.  A given node MUST NOT originate more than one LSA containing
   RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER TLV.  An LSA containing a
   RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER TLV MUST NOT contain any additional
   top level TLV.
   N.B.: This TLV is designed to be unique in the scope of the
   originating node and to gather all the resource descriptions relevant
   in this scope.  This "optional" TLV is provided for the implementer
   who wants to mutualize static information of multiple (or even
   single) LSAs containing RESOURCE_POOL TLVs originated by the same
   node.  In that case, the node's LSAs containing RESOURCE_POOL TLV(s)
   are referring to the content of the node's LSA containing the
   RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_CONTAINER TLV.  The content of this LSA is
   static.

   Summarizing Table

   Top-TLV Type Name                Instances  Static/Dynamic
         2      Link               1 per fiber       Mix
         5      Node Attribute      1 per Node     Static
        TBD     Resource Pool       1 per Pool     Dynamic
        TBD     Resource Desc Cont  1 per Node     Static


   ------
   DELTA:

   -   Renamed the Node Optical Property tlv into Resource Pool TLV

   -   Allow multiple instance of Resource Pool TLV

   -   Introduced an optional new TLV named Resource Description

4.2.  Link top level TLV (Generic)

   This section refer to
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te].

   The following new sub-TLVs are added to the Link top level TLV (type
   2).








Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Sub-TLV Type  Length  Name
        TBD     variable Port Label Restrictions
        TBD     variable Available Wavelengths
        TBD     variable Shared Backup Wavelengths

   In Link TLV, all the sub-TLV listed above are optional.

4.3.  Node Attribute top level TLV (Generic)

   This section refer to
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te].

   The following new sub-TLVs are added to the Node Attribute top level
   TLV (type 5).

   Sub-TLV Type  Length  Name
        TBD     variable Connectivity Matrix
        TBD     variable Port Label Restrictions
        TBD     variable Shared Risk Node Group

   In Node Attribute, all the sub-TLV listed above are optional.  None
   of them contain sub-TLV.

4.4.  Resource Pool top level TLV (WSON-specific)

   This section refer to [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf]

   The following sub-TLVs are created for the Resource Pool top level
   TLV.

   Sub-TLV Type  Length  Name
        TBD     variable Resource Description
        TBD     variable Resource Block State
        TBD     variable Shared Access Available Wavelength
        TBD     variable Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints

   In Resource Pool, all the sub-TLV listed above are optional.  The
   only one of them containing sub-TLV is the Resource Description.

4.4.1.  Resource Description sub-TLV

   The following sub-TLVs are created for the Resource Pool top level
   TLV.








Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Sub-TLV Type  Length  Name
        TBD     variable Modulation List
        TBD     variable FEC List
        TBD     variable Rate Range List
        TBD     variable Client Signal List
        TBD     variable Processing Capabilities
        TBD     variable Label Constraints

   In Resource Description, all the sub-TLV listed above are optional.

4.5.  Resource Description Container top level TLV (WSON-specific)

   This section refer to [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf]

   The following sub-TLVs are created for the Resource Description
   Container top level TLV.

   Sub-TLV Type  Length  Name
        TBD     variable Resource Description


5.  Solution(s) Evaluation

   Within this section we try evaluate the amount of information that
   needs to be exchanged through routing advertisements.  For this
   evaluation we consider some minimum optical node reference design to
   make a OEO extension future proof.

   This sections starts with summarizing the LSAs needed to depict a
   node with both the solution depicted by this document and the
   solution depicted by [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info].  Afterwards, the
   hypothesis concerning the node features that will serve as a basis
   for the solution evaluation will be presented, before the actual
   results of the solutions evaluations (both the one of this document
   and the one of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info]).

5.1.  RBNFs Comparison

   In this section we try compare the how TLVs are composed according
   two this draft proposal versus existing WSON solutions.  The goal
   here is to provide the all reference for and easy understanding where
   two solutions are different.  Numbers will be provided in the next
   section.

   The evaluation will be done on the Resource Pool top-level TLV since
   the Node address and Link TLV are considered equivalent.

   WSON Drafts.  According to



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf] in section 2 defines
   the Optical Node Property TLV which collect the WSON specific
   information.  This TLV is composed of the following:

 <ResourcePool> ::= [<ResourceBlockInformation>]...
     [<ResourceBlockAccessibility>]... [<ResourceBlockWvlConstraint>]...
     [<ResourceBlockPoolState>...] [<SharedAccessWvls>...]

   a)  Resource Block Information.  Defined as : ([<ResourceSet>]
       <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities> <OutputConstraints>).
       A resource block information defines here the number of devices
       inside the block.

   b)  Resource Block Accessibility.  Defined as (<PoolIngressMatrix>
       <PoolEgressMatrix>) which is expanded in tuples like
       (<INGRESS_LINK_SET><ResourceSet>)* and
       (<EGRESS_LINK_SET><ResourceSet>)*.  Note that INGRESS/
       EGRESS_LINK_SET is a name defined here for the link set field
       used in the [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info] document.

   c)  Resource Block Wavelength Constraints.  Defined as
       <IngressWaveConstraints><EgressWaveConstraints>.  This is
       expanded in <ResourceSet>INPUT_WAVELENGHT_SET
       OUTPUT_WAVELENGTH_SET, for the static constraints of resource
       blocks.

   d)  Shared Access Wavelengths.  Defined as
       <IngressWaveConstraints><EgressWaveConstraints>.  This is
       expanded in <ResourceSet>INPUT_WAVELENGHT_SET
       OUTPUT_WAVELENGTH_SET, for the shared fibers between blocks.

   e)  Resource Block Pool State. <ResourceSet> <USAGE_STATE_BITMAP>

   In current proposal there are two types of TLV.

   First the Resource Pool TLV (with an instance per pool) is composed
   of the following information:

   <ResourcePool> ::= <ResourcePoolID> [<ResourceDescription>]...
       [<ResourcePoolWvlConstraints>]... [<SharedAccessWvls>]...
       [<ResourceBlockState>]...

   a)  Resource Description.  Which is defined as: (<RBlockID>...)
       <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities> <OutputConstraints>.
       This is equivalent to the item a) above without the number of
       devices inside the resource block, which allow this definition to
       be usable by any block.  The number of available resource of a
       given type inside the pool being specified by the Resource Block



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


       State below.  When a Resource Description Container TLV is
       defined by a Node, the Resource Pool TLV of this same node SHOULD
       NOT contain any Resource Description sub-TLV.

   b)  Resource Block State.  Where RBlockState is defined as <RBlockID>
       [<NumResources>] <NumberOfAvailableResources>.  This field
       efficienty report how many of a given resource type is available
       inside the pool or not.

   c)  Shared Access Available Wavelength.  This is composed of a Label
       Restriction field and SHOULD used to depict the dynamic
       constraints of the pool.

   d)  Resource Pool Wavelength Constraints.  This is composed of a
       Label Restriction field and MAY be used to depict the static
       constraints of the pool.

   Second the Resource Descriptor Container TLV (with a single instance
   per node) is used to gather all the Resource Descriptions of a given
   node, as these are static information composed of the following
   information:

   <ResourceDescriptionContainer> ::= <ResourceDescription>...

   a)  Resource Description.  Which is defined as: (<RBlockID>...)
       <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities> <OutputConstraints>.
       This is equivalent to the item a) above.

5.2.  Depiction of the considered cases for evaluation

   For the sake of the comparison we have considered the following
   parameters and values characterizing the optical node design:

   o  Node Degree Connectivity: 4, 8 and 16.

   o  WDM capacity: 100 wavelengths.

   o  Switching capacity.  Defines the total node switching capability
      and is calculated as Node Degree Connectivity x 100 wavelengths.

   o  Regeneration Capability.  We assume a value of 5% of the total
      switching capacity.

   o  Add/Drop Capability.  We assume a typical value of 25% of the
      switching capability.  So in the average up to 30 wavelengths per
      incoming fiber can be added/dropped within the optical node.





Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   o  Resource pool setup and capabilities.  A physical resource pool
      contains a mix of Add/Drop and Regeneration capabilities.  This
      has the effect of increasing the number of resource pool
      advertized.  Resource pool can be fully flexible (connected to any
      port), partial (only to some port) or Fixed (can only be connected
      to one direction).  This parameter influences the complexity of
      the connectivity matrix.

   o  Number of Regenerator types.  For a given node the number of OEO
      capabilities is limited, it is typically decided by the type of
      electrical equipment and optical modules (emitting laser and
      optical receiver).

   o  Blocking Ratio.  The Spatial/Spectral blocking ratio indicates how
      much port-based/wavelength based blocking a node is experiencing.

   For example considering the typical design it results in the
   following static layout:

   o  3 OEO pools each having 3 Resource Block inside.

   o  Connectivity Matrix: (8+30+30) 64x64 if considering one
      connectivity matrix.  Ingress=64x3, Egress=3x64 (considering the
      OEO access with a multiple-wavelength link).

   The following types of nodes and node designs were considered in this
   evaluation:

                          Node Types and designs

                 Node Type       Nodal Degree Pool Type Blocking
            Small(S), Flexible         4       Partial    None
           Small(S), Fixed(port)       4        Fixed     Port
          Small(S), Fixed(label)       4       Partial   Lambda
            Middle(M), Flexible        8       Flexible   None
            Large(L), Flexible        16       Flexible   None

   For the small nodes, 5 different type of regenerators are considered,
   for the Middle and Large ones 10 different type of regenerators are
   considered.  Based on those designs we derived the following
   important figures:

   o  Number of resourcePool : depends on the pool type and
      connectivity, which depend on the port blocking and number of Add/
      Drop and Regenerator capacity.

   o  Number of resourceBlock.  There is two numbers to be considered
      here : the number of resourceBlock for a given resource pool (this



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


      document) and total number of resourceBlock
      ([I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info]).  In this document the number of
      resource block within a resource pool is, worst case, the number
      of possible regenerator types, whereas in
      [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info] the number of resource block depends on
      the number of OEO types and on the connectivity.

   o  Number of connectivity matrix/number of pairs/link per pairs.  The
      number of sub-matrix increase depending on the port blocking
      ratio, the number of pair in one connectivity matrix depends on
      the wavelength restrictions.  Those two criteria do not depend on
      which information model is considered.  The number of link per set
      is increased by the number of resource pool in this draft.

   Those numbers for each node are shown in the following table:

                 Details of information elements per node

        Node Type    Resource Pools Resource Blocks Matrix/Pair/Links
       S, Flexible          1            5 (30)       1/1/10 (1/1/1)
      S, Fixed(port)        4            5 (60)       4/4/4 (4/4/1)
     S, Fixed(label)        4            5 (30)       4/1/10 (4/1/1)
       M, Flexible          1           10 (30)       1/1/11 (1/1/1)
       L, Flexible          1           10 (50)       1/1/21 (1/1/1)

       Nota: Values for [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] are between
                                 brackets

5.3.  Comparing evaluation of the solutions

   Based on those key information model elements both the tables "LSA
   size" indicate the size of the LSAs in this document and in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode].  Number of flooded LSAs of a given
   type are indicated between brackets (when bigger than 1).

     Solution of this document - Average size (and number) of LSAs per
                          node type (unit: bytes)

        Node Type    Node Attr LSA Resource Pool LSA Resource Desc LSA
       S, Flexible        117           120 (6)             524
      S, Fixed(port)      692           120 (12)            644
     S, Fixed(label)      620           120 (6)             524
       M, Flexible        127           120 (3)             904
       L, Flexible        209           120 (5)             984







Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


     Solution of [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] - Average size (and
                number) of LSAs per node type (unit: bytes)

                 Node Type    Node Attr LSA Optical Node LSA
                S, Flexible         49            2801
               S, Fixed(port)      340            2980
              S, Fixed(label)      132            4118
                M, Flexible         52            2980
                L, Flexible         54            2809

   The Resource Description Container LSA contains several resource
   description TLVs.  This LSA is smaller than the corresponding in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] mainly because the resource
   description do not depend on the port/lambda connectivity and number
   of device per block, thus allowing a better sharing of the
   information depicting the oeo capabilities.

   The following summarizing table indicates the size of the sum of all
   LSA and the average size per update.  In this document all the
   dynamic part is in the resource pool, allowing a more efficient
   updating behavior.  The evaluation for
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] are best case/worst case; the best
   case being an update of the RBState TLV and SharedAccessPool TLV
   only, which requires a multi-instance implementation of OSPF.

                      Summarizing Table (unit:bytes)

      Node Type    Total LSA size  Total number of     Avg size of an
                                         LSA               update
     S, Flexible     1361 (2850)        8 (2)          120 (616/2801)
    S, Fixed(port)   2776 (5411)        14 (2)         120 (1192/2980)
   S, Fixed(label)   1864 (2941)        8 (2)          120 (616/4118)
     M, Flexible     1391 (3032)        5 (2)          120 (448/2980)
     L, Flexible     1793 (4172)        7 (2)          120 (720/2809)

       Nota: Values for [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] are between
                                 brackets

   The node design considered are typical case, a worst case can be a
   node with high nodal degree, with lots of port and wavelength
   constraints.  With considering a nodal degree of 8, resulting in 28
   resource pool and 140 resource blocks, the total size is 9816 (11820)
   with 30 (2) LSAs.


6.  Acknowledgements

   This template was derived from an initial version written by Pekka



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project.

   This document shares common material with the documents quoted, which
   seems fair as the target of this version is to highlight differences.


7.  Contributors

   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo requires many requests to IANA, which will be completed in
   a latter version.


9.  Security Considerations

   All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
   See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode]
              Bernstein, G., "General Network Element Constraint
              Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-04 (work in
              progress), December 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te]
              Zhang, F., Lee, Y., Han, J., Bernstein, G., Xu, Y., Zhang,
              G., Li, D., Chen, M., and Y. Ye, "OSPF-TE Extensions for
              General Network Element Constraints",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-00
              (work in progress), March 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode]
              Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and J. Han,



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


              "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding
              for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11 (work in progress),
              March 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf]
              Lee, Y. and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal and
              Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched
              Optical Networks",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-04 (work
              in progress), March 2011.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              September 2003.

   [RFC4202]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

   [RFC5786]  Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
              Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rwa-info]
              Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., Li, D., and W. Imajuku, "Routing
              and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
              Switched Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11
              (work in progress), March 2011.

   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
              Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an



Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
              draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in
              progress), March 2008.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
              GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
              Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
              April 2011.


Appendix A.  Additional Stuff

   This becomes an Appendix.


Authors' Addresses

   Pierre Peloso (editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent
   R.te de Villejust
   Nozay,   91620
   France

   Phone: +33 130 702 662
   Email: pierre.peloso@alcatel-lucent.com


   Giovanni Martinelli
   Cisco
   Monza,   20900
   Italy

   Phone: +39 039 209 2044
   Email: giomarti@cisco.com


   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom
   2, av. Pierre Marzin
   Lannion,   22307
   France

   Phone: +33 296 052 828
   Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com







Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft         OSPF-TE extensions for WSON             June 2011


   Cyril Margaria
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St-Martin str. 76
   Munchen,   81541
   Germany

   Phone: +49-89-5159-16934
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com











































Peloso, et al.          Expires December 12, 2011              [Page 41]