Internet DRAFT - draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Xian Zhang
Category: Standards Track Huawei
D. Ceccarelli
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
Guoying Zhang
CATR
D. Beller
S.Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: April 11, 2013 October 12, 2012
Link Management Protocol (LMP) extensions for G.709
Optical Transport Networks
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp-00.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 April 11, 2013.
Abstract
Recent progress of the Optical Transport Network (OTN) has introduced
new signal types (i.e., ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) and new
Tributary Slot granularity (1.25Gbps).
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 1]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
Since equipments deployed prior to recently defined ITU-T
recommendations only support 2.5 Gbps Tributary Slot granularity and
ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 containers, the compatibility problem should be
considered. In addition, a Higher Order ODU (HO ODU) link may not
support all the types of Lower Order ODU (LO ODU) signals defined by
the new OTN standard because of the limitation of the devices at the
two ends of a link. In these cases, the control plane is required to
run the capability discovering functions for the evolutive OTN.
This document describes the extensions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) needed to discover the capability of HO ODU link,
including the granularity of Tributary Slot to be used and the LO ODU
signal types that the link can support. Moreover, extensions of LMP
test messages detailing the OTN technology specific information in
order to cover also G.709v3 signal types and containers are also
provided.
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Terminology ................................................. 4
3. Overview of the Evolutive G.709 .............................. 4
4. Link Capability Discovery ................................... 5
4.1. Link Capabaplity Discovery Requirements ................. 5
4.1.1. Discovering the Granularity of the TS .............. 5
4.1.2. Discovering the Supported LO ODU Signal Types....... 6
4.2. Extensions: LMP Link Summary Message .................... 7
4.2.1. Message Extension .................................. 7
4.2.1.1. LinkSummary Message ........................... 7
4.2.1.2. LinkSummaryAck Message ........................ 8
4.2.1.3. LinkSummaryNack Message ....................... 8
4.2.2. Object Definitions ................................. 8
4.2.3. Procedures ........................................ 10
5. Verifying Link Connectivity ................................. 12
5.1. Encoding Type ......................................... 13
5.2. Verify Transport Mechanism ............................. 13
5.3. Transmission Rate ...................................... 14
6. Trace Monitoring ........................................... 15
6.1. TRACE Object for evolutive OTN ......................... 15
6.2. Discovery Response Message for Layer Adjacency Discovery 17
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 2]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
7. LMP Behavior Negotiation Update ............................. 18
8. Security Considerations ..................................... 18
9. IANA Considerations ........................................ 19
10. Acknowledgments ........................................... 19
11. References ................................................ 19
11.1. Normative References .................................. 19
11.2. Informative References ................................ 20
12. Authors' Addresses ........................................ 20
13. Contributors .............................................. 22
1. Introduction
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) defined in [RFC4204] is being
developed as part of the Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite to
manage Traffic Engineering (TE) links.
Recently, great progress has been made for the Optical Transport
Networking (OTN) technologies in ITU-T. New ODU containers (i.e.,
ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex) and a new Tributary Slot (TS)
granularity (1.25Gbps) have been introduced by the [G709-V3],
enhancing the flexibility of OTNs.
With the evolution and deployment of G.709 technology, the backward
compatibility problem requires to be considered. In data plane, the
equipment supporting 1.25Gbps TS can combine the specific Tributary
Slots together (e.g., combination of TS#i and TS#i+4 on a HO ODU2
link) so that it can interwork with other equipments which support
2.5Gbps TS. From the control plane point of view, it is necessary to
discover which type of TS is supported at both ends of a link, so
that it can choose and reserve the TS resources correctly in this
link for the connection.
Additionally, the requirement of discovering the signal types of
Lower Order ODU (LO ODU) that can be supported by a Higher Order ODU
(HO ODU) should be taken into account. Equipment at one end of a HO
ODU link may not support to transport some types of LO ODU signals
(e.g., may not support the ODUflex). In this case, this HO ODU link
should not be selected for those types of LO ODU connections.
From the perspective of control plane, it is necessary to discover
the capability of a HO ODUk or OTUk link including the granularity of
TS to be used and the LO ODU signal types that the link can support.
Note that this capability information can be, in principle,
discovered by routing. Since in certain case, routing is not present
(e.g., UNI case) we need to extend link management protocol
capabilities to cover this aspect. Obviously, in case of routing
presence, the discovering procedure by LMP could also be optional.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 3]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
A further enhancement needed with respect to LMP covers the link
verification and link property correlation functionalities and the
G.709 test procedures they are based on. Such procedures require the
definition of a G.709 specific TRACE object. After data links have
been verified, it is possible to group them into the TE links.
This document extends the LMP and describes the solution of
discovering HO ODU link capability and operating link verification
and link property correlation.
2. Terminology
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].
3. Overview of the Evolutive G.709
The traditional OTN standard [ITUT-G709] describes the optical
transport hierarchy (OTH) and introduces three ODU signal types (i.e.,
ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3). The ODUj can be mapped into one or more
Tributary Slots (with a granularity of 2.5Gbps) of OPUk where j<k.
The ODUj can also be mapped into OTUj (j=1, 2 or 3) directly.
Recent revisions of ITU-T Recommendation G.709 have introduced new
features for the evolutive Optical Transport Networks (OTN). New ODU
signals, including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex, are described in
[G709-V3]. This document also defines the new multiplexing hierarchy
for the evolutive OTN. In this multiplexing hierarchy, LO ODUj can be
mapped into an OTUj, or multiplexed into a HO ODUk (where j<k) by
occupying several tributary slots.
In case of LO ODUj mapping into OTUj, the following mappings are
defined:
- ODU1 into OTU1 mapping
- ODU2 into OTU2 mapping
- ODU3 into OTU3 mapping
- ODU4 into OTU4 mapping
In case of LO ODUj multiplexing into HO ODUk, a new Tributary Slot
granularity (i.e., 1.25Gbps) is introduced in [G709-V3]. For the
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 4]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
evolutive OTN, the multiplexing of ODUj (j = 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, flex)
into an ODUk (k > j) signal can be depicted as follows:
- ODU0 into ODU1 multiplexing (with 1,25Gbps TS granularity)
- ODU0, ODU1, ODUflex into ODU2 multiplexing (with 1.25Gbps TS
granularity)
- ODU1 into ODU2 multiplexing (with 2.5Gbps TS granularity)
- ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, ODU2e and ODUflex into ODU3 multiplexing
(with 1.25Gbps TS granularity)
- ODU1, ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing (with 2.5Gbps TS granularity)
- ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, ODU2e, ODU3 and ODUflex into ODU4
multiplexing (with 1.25Gbps TS granularity)
Note that If TS auto-negotiation is supported, a node supporting
1.25Gbps TS can interwork with the other nodes that supporting
2.5Gbps TS by combining specific TSs together in data plane, as
descirbied in [OTN-frwk].
4. Link Capability Discovery
4.1. Link Capabaplity Discovery Requirements
4.1.1. Discovering the Granularity of the TS
As described in section 3.1, if the two ends of a link use different
granularities of TS, The LO ODU must be mapped into specific combined
Tributary Slots in the end of link with TS of 1.25Gbps.
From the perspective of control plane, when creating a LO ODU
connection, the node MUST select and reserve specific TS for the
connection if the two ends of a link use different granularities of
TS. For example, for an ODU2 link, we suppose that node A only
supports the 2.5Gbps TS while node B supports the 1.25Gbps TS. When
node B receives a Path message from node A requesting an ODU1
connection, node B MUST reserve the TS#i and TS#i+4 (where i<=4)
(with the granularity of 1.25Gbps) and tell node A via the label
carried in the Resv message that the TS#i (with the granularity of
2.5Gbps) among the 4 slots has been reserved for the ODU1 connection.
Otherwise, the reservation procedure will fail.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 5]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
+-----+ Path +-----+
| | ------------> | |
| A +-------ODU2 link-------+ B |
| | <------------- | |
+-----+ Resv +-----+
(Support 2.5G TS) (Support 1.25G TS)
Therefore, for an ODU2 or ODU3 link, in order to reserve TS resources
correctly for a LO ODU connection, the control plane of the two ends
MUST know which granularity the other end can support before creating
the LO ODU connection.
4.1.2. Discovering the Supported LO ODU Signal Types
Many new ODU signal types are introduced by [G709-V3], such as ODU0,
ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex. It is possible that equipment does not
always support all the LO ODU signal types introduced by [G709-V3].
If one end of a HO ODU link can not support a certain LO ODU signal
type and there is no HO ODU FA LSP able to support this LO ODU signal,
the HO ODU link/FA LSP can not be selected to carry such type of LO
ODU connection.
For example, in the following figure, if the interfaces IF1, IF2, IF8,
IF7, IF5 and IF6 can support ODUflex signals, while the interfaces IF
3 and IF4 can not support ODUflex signals. In this case, if one
ODUflex connection from A to C is requested, and there is no HO ODU
FA LSP from node A to C through node B, link #1 and #2 should be
excluded, link #3 and link #4 are the candidates (the possible path
could be A-D-C through link #3 and link #4).
+-----+
link #3 | | link #4
+-----------------+ D +-----------------+
| IF8| |IF7 |
| +-----+ |
| |
|IF1 IF6|
+--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+
| | link #1 | | link #2 | |
| A +--------------+ B +--------------+ C |
| |IF2 IF3| |IF4 IF5| |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Therefore, it is necessary for the two ends of a HO ODU link to
discover which types of LO ODU can be supported by the HO ODU link.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 6]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
After discovering, the capability information can be flooded by IGP,
so that the correct path for an ODU connection can be calculated.
4.2. Extensions: LMP Link Summary Message
[RFC4204] defines the Link Management Protocol (LMP) which consists
of four main procedures: control channel management, link property
correlation, link connectivity verification, and fault management. As
part of LMP, the link property correlation is used to verify the
consistency of the TE and data link information on both sides of a
link. This document extends the link property correlation procedure
to discover the capability of both sides of a HO ODU link.
The designated HO ODU overhead bytes (e.g., the GCC1 and GCC2
overhead bytes) can be used as the control channel to carry the LMP
message after the HO ODU link is created. The out-of-band Data
Communication Network (DCN) can also be used.
4.2.1. Message Extension
Three messages are used for link property correlation: LinkSummary,
LinkSummaryAck and LinkSummaryNack Message. This document does not
change the basic procedure of LMP but just add a new subobject (HO
ODU Link Capability) in the DATA_LINK object to carry the capability
of one end of a HO ODU link.
The formats of LinkSummary, LinkSummaryAck and LinkSummaryNack
messages are defined in [RFC4204].
4.2.1.1. LinkSummary Message
The local end of a TE link can send a LinkSummary message to the
remote end to start the negotiation about the capability that the TE
link can support.
One new Subobject named HO ODU Link Capability Subobject in the
DATA_LINK object is introduced by this document. This new subobect is
used to tell the remote end of the HO ODU link which TS granularity
and which LO ODU signal types that the local end can support. When
the DATA_LINK object carries the new HO ODU Link Capability Subobject,
the N flag SHOULD be set to 1 which means that the subobject is
negotiable.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 7]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
4.2.1.2. LinkSummaryAck Message
The LinkSummaryAck message is used to tell the remote end that it has
the same capability as the remote end after the LinkSummary message
is received by the local end.
4.2.1.3. LinkSummaryNack Message
The LinkSummaryNack message is used to tell the remote end that it
has different capability from the remote end after the LinkSummary
message is received by the local end. The LinkSummaryNack message
also carries the HO ODU Link Capability subobject in the DATA_LINK
object to tell the remote end the exact capability of the HO ODU link
after negotiation, i.e., the granularity of TS and the types of LO
ODU that both side of the HO ODU link can support.
4.2.2. Object Definitions
A new HO ODU Link Capability subobject type is introduced to the DATA
LINK object to carry the HO ODU link capability information. The
format of the new subobject 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |OD(T)Uk| T | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|B|C|D|E|F|G| LO ODU Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (8 bits):
The value of this subobject type is TBD.
Length (8 bits):
The Length field contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. As for RFC 4204, the Length
MUST be at least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4. Value of this field
is 8.
OD(T)Uk (4 bits):
This field is used to indicate the HO ODU link type (in case of LO
ODUj multiplexing into HO ODUk, wherein j<k) or the OTU link type (in
case of LO ODUk mapping into OTUk).
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 8]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
OD(T)Uk field Signal type of HO ODUk or OTUk
------------- ------------------------------
0 Reserved (for future use)
1 HO ODU1 or OTU1
2 HO ODU2 or OTU2
3 HO ODU3 or OTU3
4 HO ODU4 or OTU4
5-15 Reserved (for future use)
T (2 bits):
The T bits are used to indicate the granularity of the TS of the HO
ODU link.
T field TS type
------- -------
00 Meaningless
01 1.25Gbps TS granularity
10 2.5Gbps TS granularity
11 Reserved (for future use)
In case that an OTUk link only support ODUj (j=k) into OTUk mapping
and does not support any ODUj into ODUk (j<k) multiplexing, then the
T field is not meaningful and MUST be filled with 0 and be ignored on
receipt.
LO ODU flags (A|B|C|D|E|F|G) (16 bits):
These flags are used to indicate which LO ODU signal types that one
end or the both end can support. The flags will be set to 1 if the
corresponding LO ODU signal types are supported to be mapped or
multiplexed into the OTUk or HO ODUk link.
This rule imposes that:
- At least one flag is set to 1.
- When the ODUj (j=k) flag corresponding to the signal type HO
ODUk/OTUk is set to 1, then the signal type OD(T)Uk has to be
intended as LO ODUk and direct mapping over OTUk is supported.
* Furthermore, if only the ODUj(j=k) flag is set to 1, it means
that the HO ODUk/OTUk link only supports ODUj(j=k) into OTUk
mapping. In other words, the link does not support any ODUj
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 9]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
into ODUk (j<k) multiplexing (i.e., payload type != 20/21), but
may support carrying various non-ODU client signals listed in
Table 15-8 of [G709-V3].
- When an ODUj (j<k) flag not corresponding to the signal type HO
ODUk/OTUk is set to 1 then the signal type OD(T)Uk has to be
intended as HO ODUk and multiplexing of LO ODUj over HO ODUk is
supported.
Flag A: indicates whether LO ODU0 is supported.
Flag B: indicates whether LO ODU1 is supported.
Flag C: indicates whether LO ODU2 is supported.
Flag D: indicates whether LO ODU3 is supported.
Flag E: indicates whether LO ODU4 is supported.
Flag F: indicates whether LO ODU2e is supported.
Flag G: indicates whether LO ODUflex is supported.
For example, if one end of an OTU2 link supports LO ODU0, LO ODU1, LO
ODUflex into HO ODU2 multiplexing and supports LO ODU2 into OTU2
mapping, the flags A, B, C, and G will be set to 1.
As a further example, if one end of an OTU2 link supports only LO
ODU2 into OTU2 mapping but no multiplexing, only flag C will be set
to 1.
The remaining flags are reserved for future use and MUST be set to 0.
4.2.3. Procedures
The Link Summary messages used for capability discovery for HO ODUk
or OTUk link are sent between adjacent nodes after the HO ODU link is
created or driven by some events (e.g., an operator command). The
procedure is described below:
o The local end of the HO ODU link sends a LinkSummary message
including one or more DATA_LINK objects, each of which contains
the Local_Interface_Id, the Remote_Interface_Id, and the HO ODU
link capability subobject. This subobject carries the capability
that the local end can support, i.e., the granularity of TS and
the set of LO ODU signal types that the local end can support. The
LinkSummary message is sent to the remote end.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 10]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
o On receipt of the LinkSummary message, the remote end of the HO
ODU link firstly determines whether the local/remote Interface_Id
mappings match those that are stored locally as described in
[RFC4204], and then obtains the HO ODU link capability subobject
and determines the capability of the HO ODU link that both ends
can support. The detail procedures are as follow:
- Only if both ends support the 1.25Gbps TS, the remote end would
choose the 1.25Gbps as the negotiated granularity for the HO
ODU link. In other cases, the 2.5Gbps TS MUST be used (e.g., if
the local end can support 1.25Gbps, and the remote end can
support 2.5Gbps, and then the local end should imitate 2.5Gbps).
- The remote end compares the two sets of LO ODU signal types
that the local end and the remote end can support, and
calculates the intersection of them, i.e., extracts all the LO
ODU signal types that both two ends can support. This
intersection is the set of LO ODU signal types that the HO ODU
link can support.
o If both the two ends support the same capability, i.e., they
support the same granularity of TS and the same LO ODU signal
types, the remote end replies a LinkSummaryAck message to the
local end. So the both ends know what capability the HO ODU link
can support.
o If the two ends support different capabilities, i.e., they support
different granularities of TS or different LO ODU signal types,
the remote end replies a LinkSummaryNack message to the local end.
The LinkSummaryNack message carries an ERROR_CODE object and one
or more DATA_LINK objects. The ERROR_CODE "Renegotiate
LINK_SUMMARY parameters" (see [RFC4204]) indicates that the two
ends of the HO ODU link support different capabilities, and the
DATA_LINK object carries the HO ODU link capability subobject
which contains the negotiated granularity of TS and the set of LO
ODU signal types that both ends can support. The local end can
learn the HO ODU link capability after receiving the
LinkSummaryNack message.
o If the remote end does not support the HO ODU link capability
negotiation procedure, the LinkSummaryNack message MUST be
responded with an ERROR_CODE "Not support of HO ODU Link
Capability subobject" (TBA) indicating the reason of rejection.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 11]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
5. Verifying Link Connectivity
[RFC4204] defines a link verification procedure based on the in-band
transmission of Test messages over the data links. It is used to
verify the physical connectivity of such links, to discover data
plane resources and to exchange the Interface_Ids. It is also
possible to use a single procedure to verify multiple data links and
correlate the information collected by means of the Verify_Id
assigned to the procedure.
The link verification procedure works as follows:
- BeginVerify message: the local node sends a BeginVerify message
over a control channel. It includes a BEGIN_VERIFY object which
contains all the parameters characterizing the data link like, for
example, the number of data links that must be verified, the
transmission interval of the Test messages or the wavelength over
which the Test messages will be sent.
- BeginVerifyAck: if the remote node, upon receiving a BeginVerify
message, is ready to begin the procedure, it replies with a
BeginVerifyAck message. Such message specifies the desired
transport mechanism for the Test messages and the Verify_Id of the
procedure assigned by the remote node.
- Data link Testing: the local node, upon receiving the
BeginVerifyAck message, can begin testing the data links
repeatedly sending Test messages over them. The remote node will
reply either with a TestStatsSuccess or a TestStatusFailure for
each data link. As a consequence the local node will send a
TestStatusAck.
- End of testing: The local node can terminate the Test procedure
at anytime just sending an EndVerifyMessage towards the remote
node.
Evolutive OTNs need the support from LMP for the testing of all the
possible data links defined by ITU-T. This document provides, at
present, support to the data links defined by G.709 and G.709
amendment 3 recommendations and to G.Sup43 temporary document.
The BEGIN_VERIFY class is defined in Section 13.8 of [RFC4204]. The
following fields are extended: Encoding Type, Verify Transport
Mechanism and Transmission Rate.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 12]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
5.1. Encoding Type
The Encoding Type identifies the type of encoding supported by the
interface. LMP encoding type is consistent with the LSP encoding
types defined for RSVP-TE [RFC3471]. In particular, the value to be
used for G.709 hierarchy ODU and OTU signals is "Digital Wrapper".
5.2. Verify Transport Mechanism
This field defines the transport mechanism for the Test messages and
its scope depends on each encoding type. It is a 16 bit mask set by
the local node where each bit identifies the various mechanisms it
can support for LMP test messages transmission. This document
defines the field values with respect to the G.709 digital encoding
(they are expressed in network byte order).
- 0x01 OTUk TTI: 64 byte Test Message
Capability of transmitting Test messages using OTUk Trail Trace
Identifier (TTI) overhead with frame length of 64 bytes. See ITU
G.709 Section 15.2 and Section 15.7 for the structure and
definition. The Test message is sent according to [RFC4204].
- 0x02 ODUk TTI: 64 byte Test Message
Capability of transmitting Test messages using ODUk Trail Trace
Identifier (TTI) overhead with frame length of 64 bytes. See ITU
G.709 Section 15.2 and Section 15.8 for the structure and
definition. The Test message is sent according to [RFC4204].
- 0x04 GCC0: Test Message over the GCC0
Capability of transmitting Test messages using the OTUk Overhead
General Communications Channel (GCC0). See ITU G.709 Section 15.7
for the structure and definition. The Test message is sent
according to [RFC4204] using bit-oriented HDLC framing format
[RFC1662].
- 0x08 GCC1/2: Test Message over the GCC1/2
Capability of transmitting Test messages using the ODUk Overhead
General Communications Channels (GCC1/2). See ITU G.709 Section
15.8 for the structure and definition. The Test message is sent
according to [RFC4204] using bit-oriented HDLC framing format
[RFC1662].
- 0x10 OTUk TTI - Section Trace Correlation
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 13]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
Capability of transmitting OTUk Trail Trace Identifier (TTI) as
defined in ITU-T G.709. The Test message is not transmitted using
the OTUk TTI overhead bytes (i.e. data link), but is sent over the
control channel and correlated for consistency to the received
pattern. The correlation between the Interface_Id and the in-band
pattern is achieved using the TRACE Object as defined in Section 4
of [RFC4207]. No modification to TestStatusSuccess or
TestStatusFailure messages is required.
- 0x20 ODUk TTI - Path Trace Correlation
Capability of transmitting ODUk Trail Trace Identifier (TTI) as
defined in ITU-T G.709. The Test message is not transmitted using
the OTUk TTI overhead bytes (i.e. data link), but is sent over the
control channel and correlated for consistency to the received
pattern. The correlation between the Interface_Id the Testmessage
is sent from and the pattern sent in-band is achieved using the
TRACE Object as defined in Section 4 of [RFC4207]. No modification
to TestStatusSuccess or TestStatusFailure messages is required.
5.3. Transmission Rate
The transmission rate of the data links where the link verification
procedure can be performed is defined into the TransmissionRate field
of the BEGIN_VERIFY class ([RFC4204] Section 13.8). Values are
expressed in IEEE floating point format using a 32-bit number field
and expressed in bytes per second. The following table defines the
values to be used in OTNs:
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Signal Type | Bit-rate (kbps) | Value (Bytes/Sec) |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU0 | 1 244 160 | 0x4D1450C0 |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU1 | 2 498 775 | 0x4D94F048 |
| OTU1 | 2 666 057 | 0x4D9EE8CD |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU2 | 10 037 274 | 0x4E959129 |
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 14]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
| OTU2 | 10 709 226 | 0x4E9F9475 |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU2e | 10 399 525 | 0x4E9AF70A |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU3 | 40 319 219 | 0X4F963367 |
| OTU3 | 43 018 416 | 0X4FA0418F |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| ODU4 | 104 794 445 | 0x504331E3 |
| OTU4 | 111 809 973 | 0x50504326 |
+-------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Transmission Rate values (Bytes/Sec)
6. Trace Monitoring
[RFC4207] describes the set of trace monitoring procedures that allow
a node to do trace monitoring by using the G.709 hierarchy
capabilities.
This document defines a new C-Type of the TRACE Object class used for
Trace Monitoring features as defined in [RFC4207].
6.1. TRACE Object for evolutive OTN
The TRACE Object Class assigned by IANA is 21. A new C-Type is TBA
and value 2 is suggested. The TRACE Object format is the same as
defined in [RFC4207] and is shown in the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N| C-Type | Class | Length |
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 15]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Trace Type | Trace Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Trace Message //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TRACE Object Class
Trace Type: 16 bits
The Trace Type field is used to identify the type of the trace
message. The following values are defined and all other values are
reserved and should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
1 = OTUk TTI
2 = ODUk TTI
3 = Level 1 ODUkT TTI
4 = Level 2 ODUkT TTI
5 = Level 3 ODUkT TTI
6 = Level 4 ODUkT TTI
7 = Level 5 ODUkT TTI
8 = Level 6 ODUkT TTI (default for layer adjacency discovery)
It shall be noted that an Amendment to ITU-T G.7714.1 has been
approved in September 2010 that defines an extension for OTN layer
adjacency discovery based on the ODUk TCM function (ODUkT) providing
6 TCM levels. By default the TCM level 6 SHALL be used.
Trace Length: 16 bits
Expresses the length of the trace message in bytes (as specified by
the Trace Type).
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 16]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
Trace Message:
This field includes the value of the expected message to be received
in-band. The valid length and value combinations are determined by
the ITU.T G.709 recommendation. The message MUST be padded with
zeros to a 32-bit boundary, if necessary. Trace Length does not
include padding zeroes.
This object is non negotiable.
6.2. Discovery Response Message for Layer Adjacency Discovery
ITU-T Recommendation G.7714.1 [ITUT-G.7714.1] describes an automatic
layer adjacency discovery procedure that can be applied to the ITU-T
G.709 OTN technology. The discovery message can be sent to the
adjacent node via the Trail Trace Identifier (TTI) and Appendix III
of G.7714.1 describes how the discovery response message can be sent
back to the originator of the discovery message (discovery agent in
G.7714.1 terminology) using the LMP protocol.
As defined in [ITUT-G.7714.1], the TraceMonitor message [RFC4207] is
used to convey the discovery response message. The following mapping
table shows how the discovery response message attributes are mapped
to TraceMonitor message objects or other fields of the LMP message
(see G.7714.1, section 11 for the description of the attributes):
|
G.7714.1 discovery response | TraceMonitor/LMP message field
message attribute |
---------------------------------+--------------------------------------
<Received DA DCN ID> | <TRACE>: received discovery message
|
<Received TCP-ID> | <TRACE>: received discovery message
|
<Sent DA DCN ID> | IP source address in the IP header
|
<Sent Tx TCP-ID> | identical to <Sent Rx TCP-ID>
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 17]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
|
<Sent Rx TCP-ID> | <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID>
|
The received TTI, more specifically the discovery message in the SAPI
field contains the <Received DA DCN ID> and the <Received TCP-ID>.
These attributes are included in the discovery response message by
copying the received TTI into the <TRACE> field of the TraceMonitor
message.
The IP address of the node sending the discovery response message
corresponds to the <Sent_DA_DCN_ID> and is the IP source address in
the IP header of the LMP TraceMonitor message.
Typically, the Trail Connection Point (TCP-)IDs in transmit and
receive direction are identical for OTN equipment, i.e., the <Sent Rx
TCP-ID> is identical to the <Sent Tx TCP-ID>. The <Sent Rx TCP-ID>
identifies the TCP on which the Discovery Message was received and
corresponds to the <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID> object in the TraceMonitor
message.
7. LMP Behavior Negotiation Update
This docuemnt also introduces an update to the BehaviorConfig C-Type
defined in [LMP-NEG]. A new flag in the BehaviorConfig is needed for
the indication of the support for OTN Test Messages:
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|D|C|O| Must Be Zero (MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- O: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the TEST behavior of OTN
technology-specific defined in this document.
8. Security Considerations
TBD.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 18]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
9. IANA Considerations
TBD.
10. Acknowledgments
TBD.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[OTN-frwk] Zhang, F. et al, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
G.709 Optical Transport Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-
gmpls-g709-framework-08.txt, June 19, 2012.
[ITUT-G709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709 Recommendation, March 2003.
[G709-V3] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709 Recommendation, December 2009.
[ITUT-G.7714.1] ITU-T, "Protocol for automatic discovery in SDH and
OTN networks, G.7714.1 Recommendation", April 2003.
[RFC1662] Simpson, W., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662,
July 1994.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4207] Lang, J. and D. Papadimitriou, "Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
Messages", RFC 4207, October 2005.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 19]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, Jan 2006.
[LMP-NEG] D.Li, D.Ceccarelli, L.Berger, "Link Management Protocol
Behavior Negotiation and Configuration Modifications," July
2012, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-06.
12. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972913
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 20]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Francesco Fondelli
Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1
Pisa
Italy
Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com
Guoying Zhang
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094272
Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn
Pietro Grandi
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6864930
Email: pietro_vittorio.grandi@alcatel-lucent.it
Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Optics CTO
Via Trento 30 20059 Vimercate (Milano) Italy
+39 039 6863033
Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.it
Dan Li
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 21]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Bantian, Longgang District
Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com
Dieter Beller
Alcatel-Lucent
Lorenzstrasse 10
Stuttgart 70435
Germany
Email: dieter.beller@alcatel-lucent.com
13. Contributors
Yi Lin
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972914
Email: yi.lin@huawei.com
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
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
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 22]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
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.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
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.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 23]
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g.709v3-lmp-00.txt October 2012
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.
Ceccarelli & Zhang Expires April 2013 [Page 24]
