| TOC |
|
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 22, 2010.
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document specifies OSPF extensions to carry information about physical impairments. This information set is required for the feasibility assessment of the lightpath to be established across an optical switched network controlled by GMPLS.
The document intent is both disseminating experimental results carried out within Ericsson Research and provide an initial input for further OSPF extensions in CCAMP IETF group.
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Contributing Authors
1.2.
Requirements Language
1.3.
Background
2.
OSPF Extensions
2.1.
Operation overview
2.2.
Impairment Specification sub TLV
2.3.
Parameters of the optical interfaces at the far ends of the path
2.3.1.
Transmitter Characteristics sub-sub TLV
2.3.2.
Receiver Characteristics sub-sub TLV
2.4.
Parameters of the network nodes involved
in the propagation of the optical signal
2.4.1.
Amplifier sub-sub TLV with aggregated parameters
2.4.2.
Amplifier Characteristics sub-sub TLV with sparse parameters
2.4.3.
Dispersion Compensation Module sub-sub TLV
2.5.
Fiber Span
2.5.1.
Link impairment sub-sub-TLV
3.
IANA Considerations
4.
Security Considerations
5.
References
5.1.
Normative References
5.2.
Informative References
Appendix A.
Additional Stuff
§
Authors' Addresses
| TOC |
| TOC |
The editors gratefully acknowledge the precious contributions of Benoit Tremblay and Andras Kern.
| TOC |
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].
| TOC |
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks [WSON-Frame] is an ongoing activity in IETF's CCAMP and PCE working group which is currently addressing both the Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) constraint and the physical impairments (PI) in optical networks.
According to the current work in IETF, the optical parameters are not advertised by OSPF protocol and they must be retrieved in a different way. The typical approach is to consider the worst case values ("end of life" values) and to perform path computation in leveraging this data. This brings to a very conservative routing and prevents any sort of dynamic wavelength provisioning and recovery (i.e. recovery/rerouting is not possible).
A fast way to have a snapshot of the physical status of the network would be of paramount importance in WSON networks and would allow a dynamic on-line PCE both centralized (i.e. in NMS) or distributed (i.e. in each ingress node).
It is worth to be noted that the physical impairments addressed in this document is a subset of all the possible parameters. The choice is bounded to a particular PCE computation and therefore the OSPF could be further enriched with an additional set of parameters whenever it is needed by the usage of a different PCE.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The network architecture considered in this document is based on a centralized or distributed PCE positioning. The PCE computes the working and recovery paths based on known network characteristics and has the task to assess the feasibility of the computed paths.
Details on the physical validation service are out of the scope of this document
The Path Computation is completed taking into account the following groups of parameters:
- the parameters of the optical interfaces at the far ends of the path;
- the parameters of the network nodes involved in the propagation of the optical signal;
- the fiber spans where the signal is carried.
Moreover, two different kind of strategies can be taken into account:
- aggregated parameters distribution;
- sparse parameter distribution.
Each TE link in the network is described by OSPF with a TE LSA (as described in [RFC3630]) containing a Link TLV. This object is named TE Link LSA and comprises a certain number of sub-objects (sub-TLVs). Each of these sub-objects describes some of the characteristics of the TE link.
The sub-TLVs described in the following paragraphs are intended to be inserted in the TE LSA, in the Link TLV.
Below, an example showing a possible TLVs tree is provided.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSA age | Options | 10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | Instance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | LS Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2)(Link) | Length (196) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type (Imp.Spec)(TBD)(IANA)| Length (192) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Transm.)(1)(IANA) | Length (36) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Rec.)(2)(IANA) | Length (28) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Ampl.)(4)(IANA) | Length (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (DCM)(5)(IANA) | Length (28) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Link Imp.)(6)(IANA) | Length (64) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ payload ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TOC |
The "Impairment Specification sub TLV" is depicted below.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type (Imp.Spec)(TBD)(IANA)| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ payload ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The "Impairment Specification sub TLV" is located in the Link TLV and groups together the following s-s-TLVs:
- "Transmitter Characteristics" s-s-TLV
- "Receiver Characteristics" s-s-TLV
- "Amplifier Characteristics" s-s-TLV
- "Dispersion Compensation Module" s-s-TLV
- "Link Impairment" s-s-TLV
| TOC |
The parameters characterizing the node optical interfaces are the "Receiver" and "Transmitter" parameters.
| TOC |
The "Transmitter Characteristics" sub-sub TLV is included in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV.
The "Transmitter Characteristics" sub-sub TLV is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Transm.)(1)(IANA) | Length (36) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System Operating Wavelength Range |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System Central Wavelength |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Channel Spacing |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bit Rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extinction Ratio |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Duty Cycle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Relative Intensity Noise |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Launch OSNR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The System Operating Wavelength Range indicates the frequency range centered on the Central Wavelength and in measured in nm. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The System Central Wavelength is also indicated with the acronym lambda_m and in measured in nm. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The Channel Spacing is also indicated with the acronym delta_lambda and in masured in nm. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The Bit Rate also indicated with the acronym R and in measured in Gpbs.
The Extinction Ratio is also indicated with the acronym E_r and is measured in dB. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The Duty Cycle is also indicated with the acronym D_C and is measured in %.
The Relative Intensity Noise also indicated with the acronym RIN and in measured in [Db/Hz].
The Launch OSNR (Optical Signal to Noise Ratio) is also indicated with the acronym OSNR_in and in measured in Db.
| TOC |
The "Receiver Characteristics" sub-sub TLV is included in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV.
The "Receiver Characteristics" sub-sub TLV together is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Receiv.)(2)(IANA) | Length (28) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sensitivity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Overload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transimpedance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Electrical Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optical Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Gain |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Sensitivity is also indicated with the acronym S and in measured in dB_m. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The Overload is also indicated with the acronym O_l and in measured in dB_m. Refer to [G.959.1] for further details.
The Transimpedance is also indicated with the acronym T_r and in measured in Ohm.
The Electrical Bandwidthis also indicated with the acronym B_e and in measured in GHz.
The Optical Bandwidth is also indicated with the acronym B_o and in measured in GHz.
The FEC Gain is also indicated with the acronym G_fec and in measured in dB.
| TOC |
The parameters characterizing the transit nodes are mainly the amplifier parameters.
| TOC |
In this strategy, the physical description of the network is given using several sub-sets of homogeneous elements: types of amplifier, types of fibers, types of dispersion compensator and so on.
This strategy assumes that the PCE is aware of the parameters associated to each type of element.
In this case is sufficient to distribute, in the routing protocol, a string containing the amplifier type because the Traffic Engineering Database is aware of the parameters associated to the type itself.
The "Amplifier Characteristics" with aggregated parameters sub-sub TLV is included in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV.
The "Amplifier Characteristics" sub-sub TLV is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Ampl.)(3)(IANA) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Amplifier Set Name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TOC |
In this strategy, the physical description of the network is given using a complete enumeration of the parameters. This method can be used when there is not a predefined list of elements or when the involved element is not included in the predefined set.
The "Amplifier Characteristics" with sparse parameters sub-sub TLV is included in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV.
The "Amplifier Characteristics" sub-sub TLV is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Ampl.)(4)(IANA) | Length (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multichanel Gain Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multichanel Gain Tilt |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Received Power |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Launched Power |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Noise Figure |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Polarization Mode Dispersion |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Polarization Dependent Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Multichanel Gain Variation is also indicated with the acronym GV and in measured in dB.
The Multichanel Gain Tilt is also indicated with the acronym GT and in measured in dB.
The Total Received Power is also indicated with the acronym P_rx and in measured in dB_m.
The Total Launched Power is also indicated with the acronym P_tx and in measured in dB_m.
The Noise Figure is also indicated with the acronym NF and in measured in dB.
The Polarization Mode Dispersion is also indicated with the acronym PMD and in measured in ps.
The Polarization Dependent Loss is also indicated with the acronym PDL and in measured in dB.
| TOC |
The "Dispersion Compensation Module" sub-sub TLV is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (DCM)(5)(IANA) | Length (28) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Chromatic Dispersion |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Dispersion Slope |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Dispersion Tolerance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Slope Tolerance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Polarization Mode Dispersion |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Polarization Dependent Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Chromatic Dispersion is also indicated with the acronym D_DCM and in measured in ps/nm*km.
The Dispersion Slope is also indicated with the acronym S_DCM and in measured in ps/nm^2.
The Dispersion Tolerance is also indicated with the acronym delta_DCM and in measured in ps/nm.
The Slope Tolerance is also indicated with the acronym sigma_DCM and in measured in ps/nm^2.
The Polarization Mode Dispersion is also indicated with the acronym PMD_DCM and in measured in ps.
The Polarization Dependent Loss is also indicated with the acronym PDL_DCM and in measured in dB.
| TOC |
The fiber span is connected to the network element (NE) ports. NE ports that share common characteristics can be bundled to form a TE Link. One TE Link is seen as a bundle of ports/fibers and its capacity in terms of available channels is the union of the available channels associated to the single ports. Each physical port in the NE represents a link that is associated to a given TE link.
| TOC |
The first parameter associated with a link is a local identifier that can univocally identify it: Link ID.
The "Link impairment" sub-sub TLV is included in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV.
It is worth to be noted that more than one Link impairment sub-TLV can comprise more than one Link Impairment sub-sub-TLV, depending on the number of link boundled in a TE-link.
The "Fiber Span Characteristics" sub-sub TLV together with its inner TLVs is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-Type (Link Imp.)(6)(IANA) | Length (64) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S-s-s-Type (1)(IANA) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length of Span |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attenuation Coefficient |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Chromatic Dispersion |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Dispersion Slope |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Dispersion Uncertainty |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Slope Uncertainty |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PMD coefficient |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Effective Area |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Non Linear Refractive |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Raman Coefficient |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Connector Attenuation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Splice Attenuation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Span Margin |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "Link id" s-s-s-TLV type | Value | TLV Length (Bytes) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unnum. Link Id | 8 |
| 2 | IPv4 Link Id | 8 |
| 3 | IPv6 Link Id | 20 |
| Table 1 |
The Length of Span is also indicated with the acronym L_si and in measured in Km.
The Attenuation Coefficient is also indicated with the acronym alpha and in measured in dB/Km.
The Chromatic Dispersion is also indicated with the acronym D and in measured in ps*(nm*km).
The Dispersion Slope is also indicated with the acronym S and in measured in ps*(nm^2*km).
The Dispersion Uncertainty is also indicated with the acronym delta and in measured in ps*(nm*km).
The Slope Uncertainty is also indicated with the acronym sigma and in measured in ps*(nm^2*km).
The PMD coefficient is also indicated with the acronym PDM and in measured in ps/Km^0,5..
The Effective Area is also indicated with the acronym A_E and in measured in microm^2.
The Non Linear Refractive is also indicated with the acronym n_2 and in measured in microm^2/W.
The Raman Coefficient is also indicated with the acronym g_R and in measured in m/W.
The Connector Attenuation is also indicated with the acronym A_C and in measured in dB.
The Splice Attenuation is also indicated with the acronym alpha_S and in measured in dB.
The Span Margin is also indicated with the acronym SM and in measured in dB.
The "Link number sub-sub-sub-type" values can be freely assigned. Following there ia a suggestion for such assignement:
| TOC |
This document specifies the following new TLV types.
Sub TLVs types to be carried in the TE LSA, Link TLV:
- "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV type: TBD.
Sub-sub TLV types to be carried in the "Impairment Specifications" sub-TLV:
- "Transmitter Characteristics" sub-sub-TLV type: 1
- "Receiver Characteristics" sub-sub-TLV type: 2
- "Amplifier Characteristics Aggregated Parameters" sub-sub-TLV type: 3
- "Amplifier Characteristics Sparse Parameters" sub-sub-TLV type: 4
- "Dispersion Compensator Module" sub-sub-TLV type: 5
- "Link Impairment" sub-sub-TLV type: 6
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [PCE-WSON] | Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Takeda, T., and T. Tsuritani, “PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment,” 2009. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [RFC3630] | Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, “Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2,” RFC 3630, September 2003 (TXT). |
| [RFC4201] | Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, “Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE),” RFC 4201, October 2005 (TXT). |
| [WSON IMP] | Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Li, D., and G. Martinelli, “A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments,” 2009. |
| [WSON-Encode] | Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., Li, D., and W. Imajuku, “Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks,” 2009. |
| [WSON-FWK] | Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, “Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON),” 2009. |
| TOC |
| [ASON-Routing] | Papadimitriou, D., “OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing,” 2009. |
| [G.959.1] | “Optical Transport Network Physical Layer Interfaces.” |
| [RFC4258] | Brungard, D., “Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),” RFC 4258, November 2005 (TXT). |
| [RFC4652] | Papadimitriou, D., L.Ong, Sadler, J., Shew, S., and D. Ward, “Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing Requirements,” RFC 4652, October 2006 (TXT). |
| [WSON-Frame] | Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., and W. Imajuku, “Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks,” 2009. |
| TOC |
This becomes an Appendix.
| TOC |
| Elisa Bellagamba (editor) | |
| Ericsson | |
| Farogatan 6 | |
| Stockholm, 164 40 | |
| Sweden | |
| Phone: | |
| Email: | elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com |
| Giulio Bottari | |
| Ericsson | |
| via Moruzzi | |
| Pisa, 56 100 | |
| Italy | |
| Phone: | |
| Email: | giulio.bottari@ericsson.com |
| Francesco Fondelli | |
| Ericsson | |
| via Moruzzi | |
| Pisa, 56 100 | |
| Italy | |
| Phone: | |
| Email: | francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com |