Internet DRAFT - draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon
draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon
Internet Working Group Y. Jiang
Internet Draft Y. Luo
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
E. Mallette
Bright House Networks
C. Shen Y. Shen
China Telecom Juniper Networks
W. Cheng G. Zhou
China Mobile China Unicom
Expires: April 2015 October 25, 2014
Multi-chassis PON Protection in MPLS
draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon-03.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 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
MPLS is being deployed deeper into operator networks, often to or
past the access network node. Separately network access nodes such as
PON OLTs have evolved to support first-mile access protection, where
one or more physical OLTs provide first-mile diversity to the
customer edge. Multi-homing support is needed on the MPLS-enabled PON
OLT to provide resiliency for provided services. This document
describes the multi-chassis PON protection architecture in MPLS and
also proposes the ICCP extension to support it.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document ......................... 3
2. Terminology ............................................... 3
3. Introduction .............................................. 3
4. ICCP Protocol Extensions .................................. 6
4.1. Multi-chassis PON Application TLVs ..................... 6
4.1.1. PON Connect TLV ..................................... 6
4.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV .................................. 7
4.1.3. PON Configuration TLV ............................... 7
4.1.4. PON State TLV ....................................... 8
4.1.5. PON ONU Database Sync TLV ........................... 9
5. PON ONU Database Synchronization ......................... 11
6. Multi-chassis PON application procedures ................. 11
6.1. Protection procedure upon PON link failures ........... 13
6.2. Protection procedure upon PW failures ................. 13
6.3. Protection procedure upon the working OLT failure ..... 13
7. Security Considerations .................................. 14
8. IANA Considerations ...................................... 14
9. References ............................................... 14
9.1. Normative References .................................. 14
9.2. Informative References ................................ 15
10. Acknowledgments .......................................... 15
Authors' Addresses ............................................ 16
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
1. 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].
2. Terminology
DSL Digital Subscriber Line
FTTx Fiber-to-the-x (FTTx, x = H for home, P for premises, C for curb)
ICCP Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
OLT Optical Line Termination
ONU Optical Network Unit
MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching
PON Passive Optical Network
RG Redundancy Group
3. Introduction
MPLS is being extended to the edge of operator networks, as is
described in the seamless MPLS use cases [SEAMLESS], and the MS-PW
with PON access use case [RFC6456]. Combining MPLS with OLT access
further facilitates a low cost multi-service convergence.
Tens of millions of FTTx lines have been deployed over the years,
with many of those lines being some PON variant. PON provides
operators a cost-effective solution for delivering high bandwidth
(1Gbps or even 10Gbps) to a dozen or more subscribers simultaneously.
In the past, access technologies such as Passive Optical Network (PON)
and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) are usually used for subscribers,
and no redundancy is provided in their deployment.
But with the rapid growth of mobile data traffic, more and more LTE
small cells and Wi-Fi hotspots are deployed. PON is considered as a
viable low cost backhaul solution for these mobile services. Besides
its high bandwidth and scalability, PON further provides
synchronization features, e.g., SyncE and IEEE1588 functionality,
which can fulfill synchronization needs of mobile backhaul services.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
The Broadband Forum specifies reference architecture for mobile
backhaul network using MPLS transport in [TR-221] where PON can be
the access technology, and is further working on PON-based mobile
backhaul network architecture in [SD-331].
Unlike typical residential service where a single or handful of end-
users hangs off of a single PON OLT port in a physical optical
distribution network, a PON port that supports a dozen LTE small
cells or Wi-Fi hotspots could be providing service to hundreds of
simultaneous subscribers. Small cell backhaul often demands the
economics of a PON first-mile and yet expects first-mile protection
commonly available in point-to-point access portfolio.
Some optical layer of protection mechanisms, such as Trunk and Tree
protection, are specified in [IEEE-1904.1] to avoid single point of
failure in the access. They are called Type B and Type C protection
respectively in [G983.1].
Trunk protection architecture is an economical PON resiliency
mechanism, where the working OLT and the working link between the
working splitter port and the working OLT (i.e., the working trunk
fiber) is protected by a redundant protection OLT and a redundant
trunk fiber between the protection splitter port and the protection
OLT, however it only protects a portion of the optical path from OLT
to ONUs. This is different from the more complex and costly Type C
protection architecture where there is a working optical distribution
network path from the working OLT and a complete protected optical
distribution network path from the protection OLT to the ONUs. Figure
1 demonstrates a typical scenario of Trunk protection.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
| |
|<--Optical Distribution Network->|
| |
| branch trunk +-----+
+-----+ fibers fibers | |
Base ------| | | . OLT |
Stations ------| ONU |\ | ,'`| A |
------| | \ V _-` +-----+
+-----+ \ .'
. \ +----------+ ,-`
+-----+ . \| -` Working
Base ------| | . | Optical |
Stations ------| ONU |---------| Splitter |
------| | . /| -, Protection
+-----+ . / +----------+ `'.,
/ `-, +-----+
+-----+ / `'.,| |
Base ------| |/ | OLT |
Stations ------| ONU | | B |
------| | +-----+
+-----+
Figure 1 Trunk Protection Architecture in PON
Besides small cell backhaul, this protection architecture can also be
applicable to other services, for example, DSL and Multi-System
Operator (MSO) services. In that case, an ONU in Figure 1 can play
the similar role as a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer
(DSLAM) and dozens of Customer Premises Equipments (CPEs) or cable
modems may be attached to it.
In some deployments, it is also possible that only some ONUs are
needed to be protected.
The PON architecture depicted in Figure 1 can provide redundancy in
its physical topology, however, all traffic including link OAM are
blocked on the protection link which frustrates end to end protection
mechanisms such as ITU-T G.8031. Therefore, some standard signaling
mechanisms are needed between OLTs to exchange information, for
example, PON link status, registered ONU information, and network
status, so that protection and restoration can be done both rapidly
and reliably, especially when the OLTs also support MPLS.
ICCP [ICCP] provides a framework for inter-chassis synchronization of
state and configuration data between a set of two or more PEs.
Currently ICCP only defines application specific messages for PW
redundancy and mLACP, but it can be easily extended to support PON as
an Attachment Circuit (AC) redundancy.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
This document proposes the extension of ICCP to support Multi-chassis
PON protection in MPLS.
4. ICCP Protocol Extensions
4.1. Multi-chassis PON Application TLVs
A set of multi-chassis PON application TLVs are defined in the
following sub-sections.
4.1.1. PON Connect TLV
This TLV is included in the RG Connect message to signal the
establishment of PON application connection.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x00XX | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol Version |A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
~ ~
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- U and F Bits, both are set to 0.
- Type, set to 0x00XX for "PON Connect TLV".
- Length, Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
- Protocol Version, the version of this PON specific protocol for the
purposes of inter-chassis communication. This is set to 0x0001.
- A Bit, Acknowledgement Bit. Set to 1 if the sender has received a
PON Connect TLV from the recipient. Otherwise, set to 0.
- Reserved, Reserved for future use.
- Optional Sub-TLVs, there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
version of the protocol.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
4.1.2. PON Disconnect TLV
This TLV is included in the RG Disconnect message to indicate that
the connection for the PON application is to be terminated.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x00XX | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- U and F Bits, both are set to 0.
- Type, set to 0x00XX for "PON Disconnect TLV".
- Length, Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
- Optional Sub-TLVs, there are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this
version of the protocol.
4.1.3. PON Configuration TLV
The "PON Configuration TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data"
message, and announces an OLT's system parameters to other members in
the same RG.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x00XX | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System Priority | Port ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- U and F Bits, both are set to 0.
- Type, set to 0x00XX for "PON Configuration TLV".
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
- Length, Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
- System ID, 8 octets encoding the System ID used by the OLT, which
is the Chassis MAC address. If a 6 octet System ID is used, the least
significant 2 octets of the 8 octet field will be encoded as 0000.
- System Priority, 2 octets encoding the System Priority.
- Port ID, 2 octets PON Port ID.
Further configuration considerations such as multicast table and ARP
table for static MAC addresses will be added in a next version.
4.1.4.PON State TLV
The "PON State TLV" is included in the "RG Application Data" message,
and used by an OLT to report its PON states to other members in the
same RG.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x00XX | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ROID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local PON Port state |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PON Port state |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- U and F Bits, both are set to 0.
- Type, set to 0x00XX for "PON State TLV"
- Length, Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
- ROID, as defined in the ROID section of [ICCP].
- Local PON Port State, the status of the local PON port as
determined by the sending OLT (PE). The last bit is defined as Fault
indication of the PON Port associated with this PW (1 - in fault).
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
- Remote PON Port State, the status of the remote PON port as
determined by the remote peer of the sending OLT (PE). The last bit
is defined as Fault indication of the PON Port associated with this
PW (1 - in fault).
4.1.5.PON ONU Database Sync TLV
This TLV is used to communicate the registered ONU database
associated with a PON port between the active and standby OLT. This
message is used to both transmit the PON ONU Database from working
OLT to protect OLT and to communicate the PON ONU database status
between protect OLT and working OLT.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type=0x00XX | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ROID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | OUI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
| ONU Database Entry1 |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- U and F Bits, both are set to 0.
- Type, set to 0x00XX for "PON ONU Database Sync TLV"
- Length, Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit,
Type, and Length fields.
- ROID, defined in the ROID section of [ICCP].
- A bit, Acknowledgement bit. Set to 1 if the receiver has received a
PON ONU Database Sync. Otherwise, set to 0.
- Reserved, reserved for future use.
- OUI, the 3-byte [IEEE-802.3] organization unique identifier that
uniquely identifies the format for describing the registered ONU
database information. There are multiple PON standards and are
varying implementations within a given PON standard which likely have
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
different required information, format, etc., related to the ONU
Database Entry.
- ONU Database Entry, there may be one or more ONU Database Entries
transmitted in the PON ONU Database Sync TLV, each of which would
describe a registered ONU. The format of the ONU Database Entry is
outside the scope of this document and will be defined by the
relevant PON standard organization.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
5. PON ONU Database Synchronization
Without an effective mechanism to communicate the registered ONUs
between the working and protection OLT, all registered ONUs would be
de-registered and go through re-registration during a switchover,
which would significantly increase protection time. To enable faster
switchover capability, the work OLT must be able to communicate the
registered ONUs associated with an ROID to the protection OLT.
The PON ONU Database Synchronization would begin once the ICCP PON
Application enters OPERATIONAL state. The working OLT, the one with
the working link member for the ROID, would begin transmitting the
database of actively registered ONUs to the protection OLT for the
same ROID. Each instance of the PON ONU Database Sync TLV describes a
set of ONU Database Entries. Each ONU Database Entry would describe a
registered ONU.
The transmission of PON ONU Database Descriptors for a given ROID is
only unidirectional - from the working OLT to the protection OLT. The
protection OLT would only be responsible for acknowledging the
received message to provide a reliable database synchronization
mechanism. As ONUs register and deregister from the working OLT, the
working OLT would transmit PON ONU Database Synchronization TLV
including only the updated ONU Database Entries.
If protected ONUs and unprotected ONUs are miscellaneously attached
to the same splitter, only the protected ONUs needs to be
synchronized. The specific ONUs which needs to be synchronized can be
policy driven and provisioned in the management plane, or by some
other signaling options.
6. Multi-chassis PON application procedures
Two typical MPLS protection network architectures for PON access are
depicted in Fig.2 and Fig.3 (their PON access segments are the same
as in Fig.1 and thus omitted for simplification). OLTs with MPLS
functionality are connected to a single PE (Fig.2) or dual home PEs
(Fig.3) respectively, i.e., the working OLT to PE1 by a working PW
and the protection OLT to PE1 or PE2 by a protection PW, thus these
devices constitute an MPLS network which provides PW transport
services between ONUs and a CE.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
+-----+
| |
|OLT -,
| A | `.,
+-----+ ', PW1
`',
`., +-----+ +-----+
', | | | |
`. PE1 ------------ CE |
.'`| | | |
,-` +-----+ +-----+
.`
+-----+ .'` PW2
| | ,-`
|OLT -`
| B |
+-----+
Figure 2 An MPLS Network with a Single PE
+-----+ +-----+
| | PW1 | |
|OLT ----------------- PE1 -,
| A | | | ',
+-----+ +--/--+ ',
| `.
| `. +-----+
| `' |
| | CE |
| . |
| ,'+-----+
| ,-`
+-----+ +--\--+ ,'
| | PW2 | | .`
|OLT ----------------- PE2 -`
| B | | |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 3 An MPLS Network with Dual-homing PEs
Faults may be encountered in PON access links, or in the MPLS network
(including the working OLT). Procedures for these cases are described
in this section (it is assumed that both OLTs and PEs are working in
independent mode of PW redundancy [RFC6870]).
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
6.1. Protection procedure upon PON link failures
When a fault is detected on a working PON link, a working OLT MUST
turn off its associated PON interface so that the protection trunk
link to the protection OLT can be activated, then it MUST send an LDP
fault notification message (i.e., with the status bit "Local AC
(ingress) Receive Fault " being set) to its peer PE on the remote end
of the PW. At the same time, the working OLT MUST send an ICCP
message with PON State TLV with local PON Port State being set to
notify the protection OLT of the PON fault.
Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port state is set, a
protection OLT MUST activate the protection PON link in the
protection group, and advertise a notification message for the
protection PW with the Preferential Forwarding status bit of active
to the remote PE.
According to [RFC6870], the remote PE(s) can match the local and
remote Preferential Forwarding status and select PW2 as the new
active PW to which to send traffic.
6.2. Protection procedure upon PW failures
Usually MPLS networks have its own protection mechanism such as LSP
protection or Fast Reroute (FRR). But in a link sparse access or
aggregation network where protection for a PW is impossible in its
LSP layer, the following PW layer protection procedures can be
enabled.
When a fault is detected on its working PW (e.g., by VCCV BFD), a
working OLT SHOULD turn off its associated PON interface and then
send an ICCP message with PON State TLV with local PON Port State
being set to notify the protection OLT of the PON fault.
Upon receiving a PON state TLV where Local PON Port state is set, the
protection OLT MUST activate its PON interface to the protection
trunk fiber. At the same time, the protection OLT MUST send a
notification message for the protection PW with the Preferential
Forwarding status bit of active to the remote PE, so that traffic can
be switched to the protection PW.
6.3. Protection procedure upon the working OLT failure
As depicted in Fig. 2, a service is provisioned with a working PW and
a protection PW, both PW terminated on PE1. If PE1 lost its
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
connection to the working OLT, it SHOULD send a LDP notification
message on the protection PW with the Request Switchover bit set.
Upon receiving a LDP notification message from its remote PE with the
Request Switchover bit set, a protection OLT MUST activate its
optical interface to the protection trunk fiber and activate the
associated protection PW, so that traffic can be reliably switched to
the protection trunk PON link and the protection PW.
In the case of Fig.3, PW-RED State TLV [ICCP] can be used by PE1 to
notify PE2 the faults in all the scenarios, and PE2 operates the same
as described in Section 5.1 to 5.3.
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations as described in [ICCP] apply.
8. IANA Considerations
These values are requested from the registry of "ICC RG parameter
type":
0x00X0 PON Connect TLV
0x00X1 PON Disconnect TLV
0x00X2 PON Configuration TLV
0x00X3 PON State TLV
0x00X4 PON ONU Database Sync TLV
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC6870] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., "Pseudowire Preferential
Forwarding Status Bit", RFC 6870, February 2013
[ICCP] Martini, L. and et al, "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
for L2VPN PE Redundancy", RFC 7275, June 2014
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6456] Li, H., Zheng, R., and Farrel, A., "Multi-Segment
Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks", RFC 6456,
November 2011
[SEAMLESS] Leymann, N., and et al, "Seamless MPLS Architecture",
draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-04, Work in progress
[G983.1] ITU-T, "Broadband optical access systems based on Passive
Optical Networks (PON)", ITU-T G.983.1, January, 2005
[IEEE-1904.1] IEEE Std. 1904.1, "Standard for Service
Interoperability in Ethernet Passive Optical Networks
(SIEPON)", IEEE Computer Society, June, 2013
[IEEE-802] IEEE Std. 802, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan
Area Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE Computer
Society, December, 2001 with amendments
[TR-221] BBF TR-221, "Technical Specifications for MPLS in Mobile
Backhaul Networks", the Broadband Forum, October, 2011
[SD-331] BBF SD-331, "Architecture and Technical Requirements for
PON-Based Mobile Backhaul Networks", the Broadband Forum,
Work in progress
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Min Ye, Hongyu Li, Wei Lin, Xifeng
Wan, Yannick Legoff and Shrinivas Joshi for their valuable
discussions and comments.
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MC-PON Protection October 2014
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129, China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Yong Luo
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129, China
Email: dennis.luoyong@huawei.com
Edwin Mallette
Bright House Networks
4145 S. Falkenburg Road
Tampa, FL 33578 USA
Email: edwin.mallette@gmail.com
Chengbin Shen
China Telecom
Email: shencb@sttri.com.cn
Yimin Shen
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886, USA
Email: yshen@juniper.net
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street
Beijing 100053, China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Guangtao Zhou
China Unicom
No.9 Shouti South Road
Beijing 100048, China
Email: zhouguangtao@chinaunicom.cn
Jiang, et al Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 16]
