Internet DRAFT - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp
draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Hiremagalur, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Grammel, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper
Expires: January 7, 2016 G. Galimberti, Ed.
Z. Ali, Ed.
Cisco
R. Kunze, Ed.
Deutsche Telekom
D. Beller, Ed.
ALU
July 6, 2015
Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage
the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application
draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10
Abstract
This memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for managing Optical
parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)
systems or characterized by the Optical Transport Network (OTN) in
accordance with the Interface Application Code approach defined in
ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2.[ITU.G698.2], G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1] and
its extensions.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 January 7, 2016.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. General Parameters - OCh_General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier . . . . . . 13
6. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. OCh_Rs - receive parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This extension is based on "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-
10", for the relevant interface optical parameters described in
recommendations like ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] and
G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1]. The LMP Model from RFC4902 provides link
property correlation between a client and an OLS device. LMP link
property correlation, exchanges the capabilities of either end of the
link where the term 'link' refers to the attachment link between OXC
and OLS (see Figure 1). By performing link property correlation,
both ends of the link exchange link properties, such as application
identifiers. This allows either end to operate within a commonly
understood parameter window. Based on known parameter limits, each
device can supervise the received signal for conformance using
mechanisms defined in RFC3591. For example if the Client transmitter
power (OXC1) has a value of 0dBm and the ROADM interface measured
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
power (at OLS1) is -6dBm the fiber patch cord connecting the two
nodes may be pinched or the connectors are dirty. More, the
interface characteristics can be used by the OLS network Control
Plane in order to check the Optical Channels feasibility. Finally
the OXC1 transceivers parameters (Application Code) can be shared
with OXC2 using the LMP protocol to verify the Transceivers
compatibility. The actual route selection of a specific wavelength
within the allowed set is outside the scope of LMP. In GMPLS, the
parameter selection (e.g. central frequency) is performed by RSVP-TE.
Figure 1 shows a set of reference points, for the linear "black link"
approach, for single-channel connection (Ss and Rs) between
transmitters (Tx) and receivers (Rx). Here the DWDM network elements
include an OM and an OD (which are used as a pair with the opposing
element), one or more optical amplifiers and may also include one or
more OADMs.
+-------------------------------------------------+
Ss | DWDM Network Elements | Rs
+--+ | | | \ / | | | +--+
Tx L1--|->| \ +------+ +------+ / |--|-->Rx L1
+---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
+---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+
Tx L2--|->| OM |-->|------|->| OADM |--|------|->| OD |--|-->Rx L2
+---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+
+---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+
Tx L3--|->| / | DWDM | | ^ | DWDM | \ |--|-->Rx L3
+---+ | | / | Link +----|--|----+ Link | \ | | +--+
+-----------+ | | +----------+
+--+ +--+
| |
Rs v | Ss
+-----+ +-----+
|RxLx | |TxLx |
+-----+ +-----+
Ss = reference point at the DWDM network element tributary output
Rs = reference point at the DWDM network element tributary input
Lx = Lambda x
OM = Optical Mux
OD = Optical Demux
OADM = Optical Add Drop Mux
from Fig. 5.1/G.698.2
Figure 1: Linear Black Link approach
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Figure 2 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] )
+------+ Ss +------+ +------+ Rs +------+
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
| OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
| | ----- | | | | ----- | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | |
| +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ |
| |
+----------------------LMP-----------------------+
OXC : is an entity that contains transponders
OLS : generic optical system, it can be -
Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add
Drop Mux, etc.
OLS to OLS : represents the black-Link itself
Rs/Ss : in between the OXC and the OLS
Figure 2: Extended LMP Model
2. Use Cases
The use cases described below are assuming that power monitoring
functions are available in the ingress and egress network element of
the DWDM network, respectively. By performing link property
correlation it would be beneficial to include the current transmit
power value at reference point Ss and the current received power
value at reference point Rs. For example if the Client transmitter
power (OXC1) has a value of 0dBm and the ROADM interface measured
power (at OLS1) is -6dBm the fiber patch cord connecting the two
nodes may be pinched or the connectors are dirty. More, the
interface characteristics can be used by the OLS network Control
Plane in order to check the Optical Channels feasibility. Finally
the OXC1 transceivers parameters (Application Code) can be shared
with OXC2 using the LMP protocol to verify the Transceivers
compatibility. The actual route selection of a specific wavelength
within the allowed set is outside the scope of LMP. In GMPLS, the
parameter selection (e.g. central frequency) is performed by RSVP-TE.
G.698.2 defines a single channel optical interface for DWDM systems
that allows interconnecting network-external optical transponders
across a DWDM network. The optical transponders are considered to be
external to the DWDM network. This so-called 'black link' approach
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
illustrated in Figure 5-1 of G.698.2 and a copy of this figure is
provided below. The single channel fiber link between the Ss/Rs
reference points and the ingress/egress port of the network element
on the domain boundary of the DWDM network (DWDM border NE) is called
access link in this contribution. Based on the definition in G.698.2
it is considered to be part of the DWDM network. The access link
typically is realized as a passive fiber link that has a specific
optical attenuation (insertion loss). As the access link is an
integral part of the DWDM network, it is desirable to monitor its
attenuation. Therefore, it is useful to detect an increase of the
access link attenuation, for example, when the access link fiber has
been disconnected and reconnected (maintenance) and a bad patch panel
connection (connector) resulted in a significantly higher access link
attenuation (loss of signal in the extreme case of an open connector
or a fiber cut). In the following section, two use cases are
presented and discussed:
1) pure access link monitoring
2) access link monitoring with a power control loop
These use cases require a power monitor as described in G.697 (see
section 6.1.2), that is capable to measure the optical power of the
incoming or outgoing single channel signal. The use case where a
power control loop is in place could even be used to compensate an
increased attenuation as long as the optical transmitter can still be
operated within its output power range defined by its application
code.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Figure 3 Access Link Power Monitoring
+--------------------------+
| P(in) = P(Tx) - a(Tx) |
| ___ |
+----------+ | \ / Power Monitor |
| | P(Tx) | V P(in) |
| +----+ | Ss //\\ | | |\ |
| | TX |----|-----\\//------------------->| \ |
| +----+ | Access Link (AL-T) | . | | |
| | attenuation a(Tx) | . | |==============>
| | | . | | |
| External | | --->| / |
| Optical | | |/ |
|Transpond.| | P(out) |
| | | ___ |
| | | \ / Power Monitor |
| | P(Rx) | V P(out) |
| +----+ | Rs //\\ | | |\ |
| | RX |<---|-----\\//--------------------| \ |
| +----+ | Access Link (AL-R) | . | | |
| | Attenuation a(Rx) | . | |<==============
+----------+ | . | | |
| <---| / |
P(Rx) = P(out) - a(Rx) | |/ |
| |
| ROADM |
+--------------------------+
- For AL-T monitoring: P(Tx) and a(Tx) must be known
- For AL-R monitoring: P(RX) and a(Rx) must be known
An alarm shall be raised if P(in) or P(Rx) drops below a
configured threshold (t [dB]):
- P(in) < P(Tx) - a(Tx) - t (Tx direction)
- P(Rx) < P(out) - a(Rx) - t (Rx direction)
- a(Tx) =| a(Rx)
Figure 3: Extended LMP Model
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Pure Access Link (AL) Monitoring Use Case
Figure 4 illustrates the access link monitoring use case and the
different physical properties involved that are defined below:
- Ss, Rs: G.698.2 reference points
- P(Tx): current optical output power of transmitter Tx
- a(Tx): access link attenuation in Tx direction (external
transponder point of view)
- P(in): measured current optical input power at the input port
of border DWDM NE
- t: user defined threshold (tolerance)
- P(out): measured current optical output power at the output port
of border DWDM NE
- a(Rx): access link attenuation in Rx direction (external
transponder point of view)
- P(Rx): current optical input power of receiver Rx
Assumptions:
- The access link attenuation in both directions (a(Tx), a(Rx))
is known or can be determined as part of the commissioning
process. Typically, both values are the same.
- A threshold value t has been configured by the operator. This
should also be done during commissioning.
- A control plane protocol (e.g. this draft) is in place that allows
to periodically send the optical power values P(Tx) and P(Rx)
to the control plane protocol instance on the DWDM border NE.
This is llustrated in Figure 3.
- The DWDM border NE is capable to periodically measure the optical
power Pin and Pout as defined in G.697 by power monitoring points
depicted as yellow triangles in the figures below.
AL monitoring process:
- Tx direction: the measured optical input power Pin is compared
with the expected optical input power P(Tx) - a(Tx). If the
measured optical input power P(in) drops below the value
(P(Tx) - a(Tx) - t) a low power alarm shall be raised indicating
that the access link attenuation has exceeded a(Tx) + t.
- Rx direction: the measured optical input power P(Rx) is
compared with the expected optical input power P(out) - a(Rx).
If the measured optical input power P(Rx) drops below the value
(P(out) - a(Rx) - t) a
low power alarm shall be raised indicating that the access link
attenuation has exceeded a(Rx) + t.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Figure 4 Use case 1: Access Link power monitoring
+----------+ +--------------------------+
| +------+ | P(Tx), P(Rx) | +-------+ |
| | | | =================> | | | |
| | LMP | | P(in), P(out) | | LMP | |
| | | | <================= | | | |
| +------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | |
| | | P(in) - P(Tx) - a(Tx) |
| | | ___ |
| | | \ / Power Monitor |
| | P(Tx) | V |
| +----+ | Ss //\\ | | |\ |
| | TX |----|-----\\//------------------->| \ |
| +----+ | Access Link (AL-T) | . | | |
| | attenuation a(Tx) | . | |==============>
| | | . | | |
| External | | --->| / |
| Optical | | |/ |
|Transpond.| | P(out) |
| | | ___ |
| | | \ / Power Monitor |
| | P(Rx) | V |
| +----+ | Rs //\\ | | |\ |
| | RX |<---|-----\\//--------------------| \ |
| +----+ | Access Link (AL-R) | . | | |
| | Attenuation a(Rx) | . | |<==============
+----------+ | . | | |
| <---| / |
P(Rx) = P(out) - a(Rx) | |/ |
| |
| ROADM |
+--------------------------+
- For AL-T monitoring: P(Tx) and a(Tx) must be known
- For AL-R monitoring: P(RX) and a(Rx) must be known
An alarm shall be raised if P(in) or P(Rx) drops below a
configured threshold (t [dB]):
- P(in) < P(Tx) - a(Tx) - t (Tx direction)
- P(Rx) < P(out) - a(Rx) - t (Rx direction)
- a(Tx) = a(Rx)
Figure 4: Extended LMP Model
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Power Control Loop Use Case
This use case is based on the access link monitoring use case as
described above. In addition, the border NE is running a power
control application that is capable to control the optical output
power of the single channel tributary signal at the output port
of the border DWDM NE (towards the external receiver Rx) and the
optical output power of the single channel tributary signal at
the external transmitter Tx within their known operating range.
The time scale of this control loop is typically relatively slow
(e.g. some 10s or minutes) because the access link attenuation
is not expected to vary much over time (the attenuation only
changes when re-cabling occurs).
From a data plane perspective, this use case does not require
additional data plane extensions. It does only require a protocol
extension in the control plane (e.g. this LMP draft) that allows
the power control application residing in the DWDM border NE to
modify the optical output power of the DWDM domain-external
transmitter Tx within the range of the currently used application
code. Figure 5 below illustrates this use case utilizing the LMP
protocol with extensions defined in this draft.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Figure 5 Use case 2: Power Control Loop
+----------+ +--------------------------+
| +------+ | P(Tx),P(Rx),Set(Pout) | +-------+ +--------+ |
| | | | ====================> | | | | Power | |
| | LMP | | P(in),P(out),Set(PTx) | | LMP | |Control | |
| | | | <==================== | | | | Loop | |
| +------+ | | +-------+ +--------+ |
| | | | |
| +------+ | | P(in) = P(Tx) - a(Tx) |
| |C.Loop| | | ___ |
| +------+ | | \ / Power Monitor |
| | | P(Tx) | V |
| +------+ | Ss //\\ | | |\ |
| | TX |>----|-----\\//---------------------->| \ |
| +------+ | Access Link (AL-T) | . | | |
| VOA(Tx) | attenuation a(Tx) | . | |==============>
| | | . | | |
| External | | --->| / |
| Optical | | |/ |
|Transpond.| | P(out) |
| | | ___ |
| | | \ / Power Monitor |
| | P(Rx) | V |
| +----+ | Rs //\\ | | VOA(out) |\ |
| | RX |<---|-----\\//---------------------<|-------| \ |
| +----+ | Access Link (AL-R) | . | | |
| | attenuation a(Rx) | . | |<=======
+----------+ | VOA(out) | | |
| <--<|-------| / |
P(Rx) = P(out) - a(Rx) | |/ |
| |
| ROADM |
+--------------------------+
- The Power Control Loops in Transponder and ROADM regulate
the Variable Optical Attenuators (VOA) to adjust the proper
power in base of the ROADM and Receiver caracteristics and
the Access Link attenuation
Figure 5: Extended LMP Model
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
3. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol
This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow the Black Link
(BL) parameters of G.698.2, to be exchanged between a router or
optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached.
In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects
to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and
[RFC6205]. The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different
Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and
status of their peer. The intent of this draft is to enable the OXC
and OLS systems to exchange this information. These messages and
their usage are defined in subsequent sections of this document.
The following new messages are defined for the WDM extension for
ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]/ITU-T G.698.1 [ITU.G698.1]/
ITU-T G.959.1 [ITU.G959.1]
- OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_ApplicationIdentier (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA)
4. General Parameters - OCh_General
These are the general parameters as described in [G698.2] and
[G.694.1]. Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-
mib-12" for more details about these parameters and the [RFC6205] for
the wavelength definition.
The general parameters are
1. Central Frequency - (Tera Hz) 4 bytes (see RFC6205 sec.3.2)
2. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
3. Single-channel Application Identifier in use
4. Application Identifier Type in use
5. Application Identifier in use
Figure 6: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
TBA) is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Central Frequency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Application | |
| Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
| Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
| Application | in use | |
| Identifier | | |
| Number in use | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
vendor whose implementation generated the Application
Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
unspecified.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OUI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OUI cont. | Vendor value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor Value |
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: OCh_General
5. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
This message is to exchange the application identifiers supported as
described in [G698.2]. Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-
g-698-2-snmp-mib-10". For more details about these parameters.
There can be more than one Application Identifier supported by the
OXC/OLS. The number of application identifiers supported is
exchanged in the "OCh_General" message. (from
[G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] and G.874.1 )
The parameters are
1. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
2. Single-channel application identifier Number
uniquely identifiers this entry - 8 bits
3. Application Indentifier Type (A.I.) (STANDARD/PROPRIETARY)
4. Single-channel application identifier -- 96 bits
(from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1]
- this parameter can have
multiple instances as the transceiver can support multiple
application identifiers.
Figure 7: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
TBA) is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Application | |
| Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
| Application | | |
| Identifier | | |
| Number | | |
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// .... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel| | A.I. length |
| Application | A.I. Type | |
| Identifier | | |
| Number | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Single-channel Application Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
vendor whose implementation generated the Application
Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
unspecified.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OUI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OUI cont. | Vendor value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
6. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters
These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Source(Ss reference points).
Please refer to "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-10" for more
details about these parameters.
1. Output power
Figure 8: The format of the OCh sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Output Power |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: OCh_Ss transmit parameters
7. OCh_Rs - receive parameters
These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Sink (Rs reference points).
Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-10" for
more details about these parameters.
1. Current Input Power - (0.1dbm) 4bytes
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Figure 9: The format of the OCh receive sub-object (Type = TBA,
Length = TBA) is as follows:
The format of the OCh receive/OLS Sink sub-object (Type = TBA,
Length = TBA) is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Current Input Power |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: OCh_Rs receive parameters
8. Security Considerations
LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204]. This
document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing
LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209]. This
document does not introduce new security considerations.
9. IANA Considerations
LMP <xref target="RFC4204"/> defines the following name spaces and
the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:
- LMP Message Type
- LMP Object Class
- LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
- LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
This memo introduces the following new assignments:
LMP Sub-Object Class names:
under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in <xref target="RFC4204"/>)
- OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_ApplicationIdentifier (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA)
- OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA)
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
10. Contributors
Arnold Mattheus
Deutsche Telekom
Darmstadt
Germany
email a.mattheus@telekom.de
John E. Drake
Juniper
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
HW-US,Pennsylvania
USA
jdrake@juniper.net
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC4204] Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[RFC4209] Fredette, A. and J. Lang, "Link Management Protocol (LMP)
for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical
Line Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.
[RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
March 2011.
[RFC4054] Strand, J. and A. Chiu, "Impairments and Other Constraints
on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054, May 2005.
[ITU.G698.2]
International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
applications with single channel optical interfaces",
ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.
[ITU.G694.1]
International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"", ITU-T
Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
[ITU.G709]
International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
G.709, February 2012.
[ITU.G872]
International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
October 2012.
[ITU.G874.1]
International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
G.874.1, October 2012.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC4181] Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB
Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.
[I-D.kunze-g-698-2-management-control-framework]
Kunze, R., "A framework for Management and Control of
optical interfaces supporting G.698.2", draft-kunze-
g-698-2-management-control-framework-00 (work in
progress), July 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
Juniper
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale - 94089 California
USA
Phone: +1408
Email: dharinih@juniper.net
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-10 July 2015
Gert Grammel (editor)
Juniper
Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15
80807 Muenchen
Germany
Phone: +49 1725186386
Email: ggrammel@juniper.net
Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
Cisco
Via S. Maria Molgora, 48
20871 - Vimercate
Italy
Phone: +390392091462
Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com
Zafar Ali (editor)
Cisco
3000 Innovation Drive
KANATA
ONTARIO K2K 3E8
Email: zali@cisco.com
Ruediger Kunze (editor)
Deutsche Telekom
Dddd, xx
Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
Email: RKunze@telekom.de
Dieter Beller (editor)
ALU
Lorenzstrasse, 10
70435 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone: +4971182143125
Email: Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com
Hiremagalur, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 19]
