Internet DRAFT - draft-merge-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
draft-merge-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
Internet Engineering Task Force Q. Wang, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE
Intended status: Informational R. Valiveti, Ed.
Expires: June 27, 2019 Infinera Corp
H. Zheng, Ed.
Huawei
H. Helvoort
Hai Gaoming B.V
S. Belotti
Nokia
December 24, 2018
Applicability of GMPLS for B100G Optical Transport Network
draft-merge-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-01
Abstract
This document examines the applicability of using current existing
GMPLS routing and signaling to set up ODUk/ODUflex over ODUCn link,
as a result of the support of OTU/ODU links with rates larger than
100G in the 2016 version of G.709.
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 https://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 June 27, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
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
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OTN terminology used in this document . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of B100G in G.709 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. OTUCn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Carrying OTUCn between 3R points . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. ODUCn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. OTUCn-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Time Slot Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Structure of OPUCn MSI with Payload type 0x22 . . . . . . 8
3.6. Client Signal Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Applicability and GMPLS Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Applicability and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. GMPLS Implications and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Implications and Applicability for GMPLS Signalling . 12
4.2.2. Implications and Applicability for GMPLS Routing . . 13
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Authors (Full List) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The current GMPLS routing [RFC7138] and signaling extensions
[RFC7139] only includes coverage for the control of all the OTN
capabilities that were defined in the 2012 version of G.709
[ITU-T_G709_2012].
While the 2016 version of G.709 [ITU-T_G709_2016] introduces support
for new higher rate ODU signals, termed ODUCn (which have a nominal
rate of n x 100 Gbps), how to use GMPLS to configure ODUCn should be
taken into consideration. But it seems how to configure the ODUCn
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
link needs more discussion, so this draft mainly focuses on the use
of current GMPLS mechanisms to set up ODUk/ODUflex over an existing
ODUCn link.
This document presents an overview of the changes introduced in
[ITU-T_G709_2016] to motivate the present topic and then analyzes how
the current GMPLS routing and signalling mechanisms can be utilized
to setup ODUk/ODUflex connections over ODUCn links.
1.1. Scope
For the purposes of the B100G control plane discussion, the OTN
should be considered as a combination of ODU and OTSi layers. Note
that [ITU-T_G709_2016] is deprecating the use of the term "OCh" for
B100G entities, and leaving it intact only for maintaining continuity
in the description of the signals with bandwidth upto 100G. This
document focuses on only the control of the ODU layer. The control
of the OTSi layer is out of scope of this document. But in order to
facilitate the description of the challenges brought by
[ITU-T_G709_2016] to B100G GMPLS routing and signalling, some general
description about OTSi will be included in this draft.
2. Terminology
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. OTN terminology used in this document
a. OPUCn: Optical Payload Unit -Cn.
b. ODUCn: Optical Data Unit - Cn.
c. OTUCn: Fully standardized Optical Transport Unit - Cn.
d. OTUCn-M: This signal is an extension of the OTUCn signal
introduced above. This signal contains the same amount of
overhead as the OTUCn signal, but contains a reduced amount of
payload area. Specifically the payload area consists of M 5G
tributary slots (where M is strictly less than 20*n).
e. PSI: OPU Payload structure Indicator. This is a multi-frame
message and describes the composition of the OPU signal. This
field is a concatenation of the Payload type (PT) and the
Multiplex Structrure Indicator (MSI) defined below.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
f. MSI: Multiplex Structure Indicator. This structure indicates the
grouping of the tributary slots in an OPU payload area to realize
a client signal that is multiplexed into an OPU. The individual
clients multiplexed into the OPU payload area are distinguished
by the Tributary Port number (TPN).
g. GMP: Generic Mapping Procedure.
h. OTSiG: see [ITU-T_G872]
i. OTSiA: see [ITU-T_G872]
Detailed description of these terms can be found in
[ITU-T_G709_2016].
3. Overview of B100G in G.709
This section provides an overview of new features in
[ITU-T_G709_2016].
3.1. OTUCn
In order to carry client signals with rates greater than 100Gbps,
[ITU-T_G709_2016] takes a general and scalable approach that
decouples the rates of OTU signals from the client rate evolution.
The new OTU signal is called OTUCn; this signal is defined to have a
rate of (approximately) n*100G. The following are the key
characteristics of the OTUCn signal:
a. The OTUCn signal contains one ODUCn. The OTUCn and ODUCn signals
perform digital section roles only (see
[ITU-T_G709_2016]:Section 6.1.1)
b. The OTUCn signals can be viewed as being formed by interleaving n
OTUC signals (where are labeled 1, 2, ..., n), each of which has
the format of a standard OTUk signal without the FEC columns (per
[ITU-T_G709_2016]Figure 7-1). The ODUCn have a similar
structure, i.e. they can be seen as being formed by interleaving
n instances of ODUC signals (respectively). The OTUC signal
contains the ODUC signals, just as in the case of fixed rate OTUs
defined in G.709 [ITU-T_G709_2016].
c. Each of the OTUC "slices" have the same overhead (OH) as the
standard OTUk signal in G.709 [ITU-T_G709_2016]. The combined
signal OTUCn has n instances of OTUC OH, ODUC OH.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
d. The OTUC signal has a slightly higher rate compared to the OTU4
signal (without FEC); this is to ensure that the OPUC payload
area can carry an ODU4 signal.
3.1.1. Carrying OTUCn between 3R points
As explained above, within G.709 [ITU-T_G709_2016], the OTUCn, ODUCn
and OPUCn signal structures are presented in a (physical) interface
independent manner, by means of n OTUC, ODUC and OPUC instances that
are marked #1 to #n. Specifically, the definition of the OTUCn
signal does not cover aspects such as FEC, modulation formats, etc.
These details are defined as part of the adaptation of the OTUCn
layer to the optical layer(s). The specific interleaving of
OTUC/ODUC/OPUC signals onto the optical signals is interface specific
and specified for OTN interfaces with standardized application codes
in the interface specific recommendations (G.709.x).
The following scenarios of OTUCn transport need to be considered (see
Figure 1):
a. inter-domain interfaces: These types of interfaces are used for
connecting OTN edge nodes to (a) client equipment (e.g. routers)
or (b) hand-off points from other OTN networks. ITU-T has
standardized the Flexible OTN (FlexO) interfaces to support these
functions. Recommendation [ITU-T_G709.1] specifies a flexible
interoperable short-reach OTN interface over which an OTUCn (n
>=1) is transferred, using bonded FlexO interfaces which belong
to a FlexO group. In its current form, Recommendation
[ITU-T_G709.1] is limited to the case of transporting OTUCn
signals using n 100G Ethernet PHY(s). When the PHY(s) for the
emerging set of Ethernet signals, e.g. 200GbE and 400GbE, become
available, new recommendations can define the required
adaptations.
b. intra-domain interfaces: In these cases, the OTUCn is transported
using a proprietary (vendor specific) encapsulation, FEC etc. In
future, it may be possible to transport OTUCn for intra-domain
links using future variants of FlexO.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
==================================================================
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| OTUCn signal |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Inter+Domain | Intra+Domain | Intra+Domain |
| Interface (IrDI)| Interface (IaDI)| Interface |
| FlexO (G.709.1) | FlexO (G.709.x) | Proprietary |
| | (Future) | Encap, FEC etc. |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
==================================================================
Figure 1: OTUCn transport possibilities
3.2. ODUCn
The ODUCn signal [ITU-T_G709_2016] can be viewed as being formed by
the appropriate interleaving of content from n ODUC signal instances.
The ODUC frames have the same structure as a standard ODU -- in the
sense that it has the same Overhead (OH) area, and the payload area
-- but has a higher rate since its payload area can embed an ODU4
signal.
The ODUCn signals have a rate that is captured in Table 1.
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| ODU Type | ODU Bit Rate |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| ODUCn | n x 239/226 x 99,532,800 kbit/s = n x 105,258,138.053 |
| | kbit/s |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: ODUCn rates
The ODUCn is a multiplex section ODU signal, and is mapped into an
OTUCn signal which provides the regenerator section layer. In some
scenarios, the ODUCn, and OTUCn signals will be co-terminous, i.e.
they will have identical source/sink locations. [ITU-T_G709_2016]
and [ITU-T_G872] allow for the ODUCn signal to pass through a digital
regenerator node which will terminate the OTUCn layer, but will pass
the regenerated (but otherwise untouched) ODUCn towards a different
OTUCn interface where a fresh OTUCn layer will be initiated (see
Figure 2). In this case, the ODUCn is carried by 3 OTUCn segments.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
Specifically, the OPUCn signal flows through these regenerators
unchanged. That is, the set of client signals, their TPNs, trib-slot
allocation remains unchanged. Note however that the ODUCn Overhead
(OH) might be modified if TCM sub-layers are instantiated in order to
monitor the performance of the repeater hops. In this sense, the
ODUCn should not be seen as a general ODU which can be switched via
an ODUk cross-connect.
==================================================================
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| +-----------+ | | +----------+ |
| OTN |-----------| OTN | | OTN |----------| OTN |
| DXC +-----------+ WXC +----------------+ WXC +----------+ DXC |
| | | 3R | | 3R | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------ODUCn------------------------------>
<------------------> <----------------------> <------------------>
OTUCn OTUCn OTUCn
==================================================================
Figure 2: ODUCn signal
3.3. OTUCn-M
The standard OTUCn signal has the same rate as that of the ODUCn
signal as captured in Table 1. This implies that the OTUCn signal
can only be transported over wavelength groups which have a total
capacity of multiples of (approximately) 100G. Modern DSPs support a
variety of bit rates per wavelength, depending on the reach
requirements for the optical link. In other words, it is possible to
extend the reach of an optical link (i.e. increase the physical
distance covered) by lowering the bitrate of the client signal that
is modulated onto the carrier(s). By the very nature of the OTUCn
signal, it is constrained to rates which are multiples of
(approximately) 100G. If it so happens that the total rate of the
LO-ODUs carried over the ODUCn is smaller than n X 100G, it is
possible to "crunch" the OTUCn to remove the unused capacity. With
this in mind, ITU-T supports the notion of a reduced rate OTUCn
signal, termed the OTUCn-M. The OTUCn-M signal is derived from the
OTUCn signal by retaining all the n instances of overhead (one per
OTUC slice) but only M tributary slots of capacity.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
3.4. Time Slot Granularity
[ITU-T_G709_2012] introduced the support for 1.25G granular tributary
slots in OPU2, OPU3, and OPU4 signals. With the introduction of
higher rate signals, it is no longer practical for the optical
networks (and the datapath hardware) to support a very large number
of flows at such a fine granularity. ITU-T has defined the OPUC with
a tributary slot granularity of 5G. This means that the ODUCn signal
has 20*n tributary slots (of 5Gbps capacity). It is worthwhile
considering that the range of tributary port number (TPN) is 10*n,
and not 20*n which would allow for a different client signal to be
carried in each TS. As an example, it will not be possible to embed
15 5G ODUflex signals in a ODUC1.
3.5. Structure of OPUCn MSI with Payload type 0x22
As mentioned above, the OPUCn signal has 20*n 5G tributary slots.
The OPUCn contains n PSI structures, one per OPUC instance. The PSI
structure consists of the Payload Type (of 0x22), followed by a
Reserved Field (1 byte), followed by the MSI. The OPUCn MSI field
has a fixed length of 40*n bytes and indicates the availability of
each TS. Two bytes are used for each of the 20*n tributary slots,
and each such information structure has the following format
([ITU-T_G709_2016] G.709:Section 20.4.1):
a. The TS availability bit 1 indicates if the tributary slot is
available or unavailable
b. The TS occupation bit 9 indicates if the tributary slot is
allocated or unallocated
c. b.c. The tributary port # in bits 2 to 8 and 10 to 16 indicates
the port number of the client that is being carried in this
specific TS; a flexible assignment of tributary port to tributary
slots is possible. Numbering of tributary ports are is from 1 to
10n.
3.6. Client Signal Mappings
The approach taken by the ITU-T to map non-OTN client signals to the
appropriate ODU containers is as follows:
a. All client signals with rates less than 100G are mapped as
specified in [ITU-T_G709_2016]:Clause 17. These mappings are
identical to those specified in the earlier revision of G.709
[ITU-T_G709_2012]. Thus, for example, the 1000BASE-X/10GBASE-R
signals are mapped to ODU0/ODU2e respectively (see Table 2 --
based on Table 7-2 in [ITU-T_G709_2016])
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
b. Always map the new and emerging client signals to ODUflex signals
of the appropriate rates (see Table 2 -- based on Table 7-2 in
[ITU-T_G709_2016])
c. Drop support for ODU Virtual Concatenation. This simplifies the
network, and the supporting hardware since multiple different
mappings for the same client are no longer necessary. Note that
legacy implementations that transported sub-100G clients using
ODU VCAT shall continue to be supported.
d. ODUflex signals are low-order signals only. If the ODUflex
entities have rates of 100G or less, they can be transported
using either an ODUk (k=1..4) or an ODUCn server layer. On the
other hand, ODUflex connections with rates greater than 100G will
require the server layer to be ODUCn. The ODUCn signals must be
adapted to an OTUCn signal. Figure 3 illstrates the hierarchy of
the digital signals defined in [ITU-T_G709_2016].
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| ODU Type | ODU Bit Rate |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| ODU0 | 1,244,160 Kbps |
| ODU1 | 239/238 x 2,488,320 Kbps |
| ODU2 | 239/237 x 9,953,280 Kbps |
| ODU2e | 239/237 x 10,312,500 Kbps |
| ODU3 | 239/236 x 39,813,120 Kbps |
| ODU4 | 239/227 x 99,532,800 Kbps |
| ODUflex for | 239/238 x Client signal Bit rate |
| CBR client | |
| signals | |
| ODUflex for | Configured bit rate |
| GFP-F mapped | |
| packet traffic | |
| ODUflex for | s x 239/238 x 5 156 250 kbit/s: s=2,8,5*n, n >= |
| IMP mapped | 1 |
| packet traffic | |
| ODUflex for | 103 125 000 x 240/238 x n/20 kbit/s, where n is |
| FlexE aware | total number of available tributary slots among |
| transport | all PHYs which have been crunched and combined. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Note that this table doesn't include ODUCn -- since it cannot be
generated by mapping a non-OTN signal. An ODUCn is always formed by
multiplexing multiple LO-ODUs.
Table 2: Types and rates of ODUs usable for client mappings
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
==================================================================
Clients (e.g. SONET/SDH, Ethernet)
+ + +
| | |
+------------------+-------+------+------------------------+
| OPUk |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ODUk |
+-----------------------+---------------------------+------+
| OTUk, OTUk.V, OTUkV | OPUk | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+ |
| OTLk.n | | ODUk | |
+----------+ +---------------------+-----+ |
| OTUk, OTUk.V, OTUkV | OPUCn |
+----------+-----------------------+
| OTLk.n | | ODUCn |
+----------+ +------------+
| OTUCn |
+------------+
==================================================================
Figure 3: Digital Structure of OTN interfaces (from G.709:Figure 6-1)
4. Applicability and GMPLS Implications
4.1. Applicability and Challenges
Two typical scenarios are depicted in Appendix XIII of
[ITU-T_G709_2016], which are also introduced into this document to
help analyze the potential extension to GMPLS needed. Though these
two scenarios are mainly introduced in G.709 to describe OTUCn sub
rates application, they can also be used to describe general OTUCn
application. One thing that should be note is these two scenarios
are a little different from those described in [ITU-T_G709_2016], as
the figure in this section include the OTSi(G) in to facilitate the
description of the challenge brought by [ITU-T_G709_2016].
The first scenarios is depicted in Figure 4. This scenario deploys
OTUCn/OTUCn-M between two line ports connecting two L1/L0 ODU cross
connects (XC) within one optical transport network. One OTUCn is
actually carried by one OTSi(G) or OTSiA.
As defined in [ITU-T_G872], OTSiG is used to represent one or more
OTSi as a group to carry a single client signal (e.g., OTUCn). The
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
OTSiG may have non-associated overhead, the combination of the OTSiG
and OTSiG-O is represented by the OTSiA management/control
abstraction.
In this scenario, it is clear that the OTUCn and ODUCn link can be
automatically established, after/together with the setup of OTSi(G)
or OTSiA, as both OTUCn and ODUCn perform section layer only. One
client OTUCn signal is carried by one single huge OTSi signal or a
group of OTSi. There is a 1:1 mapping relationship between OTUCn and
OTSi(G) or OTSiA.
For example, one 400G OTUCn signal can be carried by one single 400G
OTSi signal or one 400G OTUCn signal can be split into 4 different
OTUC instances, with each instances carried by one OTSi. Those four
OTSi function as a group to carry a single 400G OTUCn signal.
==================================================================
+--------+ +--------+
| +---------------------+ |
| OTN |---------------------| OTN |
| XC +---------------------+ XC |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
<---------- ODUk/ODUflex ----------->
<------------ ODUCn -------------->
<------- OTUCn/OTUCn-M --------->
<--------OTSi(G)/OTSiA--------->
==================================================================
Figure 4: Scenario A
The second scenarios is depicted in Figure 4. This scenario deploys
OTUCn/OTUCn-M between transponders which are in a different domain B,
which are separated from the L1 ODU XCs in domain A and/or C. one
end-to-end ODUCn is actually supported by three different OTUCn or
OTUCn-M segments, which are in turn carried by OTSi(G) or OTSiA.
In the second scenario, OTUCn links will be established automatically
after/together with the setup of OTSi(G) or OTSiA, while there are
still some doubts about how the ODUCn link is established. In
principle, it could/should be possible but it is not yet clear in
details how the ODUCn link can be automatically setup.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
==================================================================
+--------------------------------------+
A | B | A or C
| | | |
+--------+ | +--------+ +--------+ | +--------+
| +----------|-+ | | +-|--------+ |
| OTN |----------|-| Transp | | Transp |-|--------| OTN |
| XC +----------|-+ onder +----------------+ onder +-|--------+ XC |
| | | | | | | | | |
+--------+ | +--------+ +--------+ | +--------+
| |
+--------------------------------------+
<-----------------------------ODUk/ODUflex---------------------------->
<----------------------------- ODUCn ------------------------------->
<-------OTUCn-------><-----OTUCn/OTUCn-M-----><-------OTUCn------->
<--OTSi(G)/OTSiA--> <----OTSi(G)/OTSiA----> <--OTSi(G)/OTSiA-->
==================================================================
Figure 5: Scenario B
According to the above description, it can be concluded that some
uncertainty about setup of ODUCn link still exist, and this
uncertainty may have relationship with the progress in ITU-T. Based
on the analysis, it is suggested that the scope of this draft should
mainly focus on how to set up ODUk/ODUflex LSPs over ODUCn links, as
also indicated in the figure above.
4.2. GMPLS Implications and Applicability
4.2.1. Implications and Applicability for GMPLS Signalling
Once the ODUCn link is configured, the GMPLS mechanisms defined in
RFC7139 can be reused to set up ODUk/ODUflex LSP with no/few changes.
As the resource on the ODUCn link which can be seen by the client
ODUk/ODUflex is a serial of 5G slots, the label defined in RFC7139 is
able to accommodate the requirement of the setup of ODUk/ODUflex over
ODUCn link.
One thing should be note is the TPN used in RFC7139 and defined in
G.709-2016 for ODUCn link. Since the TPN currently defined in G.709
for ODUCn link has 14 bits, while this field in RFC7139 only has 12
bits, some extension work is needed, but this is not so urgent since
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
for today networks scenarios 12 bits are enough, as it can support a
single ODUCn link up to n=400, namely 40Tbit.
An example is given below to illustrate the label format defined in
RFC7139 for multiplexing ODU4 onto ODUC10. One ODUC10 has 200 5G
slots, and twenty of them are allocated to the ODU4. Along with the
increase of "n", the label may become lengthy, an optimized label
format may be needed.
==================================================================
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TPN = 3 | Reserved | Length = 200 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Padding Bits(0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
==================================================================
Figure 6: Label format
4.2.2. Implications and Applicability for GMPLS Routing
For routing, we think that no extension to current mechanisms defined
in RFC7138 are needed. Because, once one ODUCn link is up, we need
to advertise only the resources that can be used on this ODUCn link
and the multiplexing hierarchy on this link. Considering ODUCn link
is already configured, it's the ultimate hierarchy of this
multiplexing, there is no need to explicitly extent the ODUCn signal
type in the routing.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
The OSPF-TE extension defined in section 4 of RFC7138 can be used to
advertise the resource information on the ODUCn link to direct the
setup of ODUk/ODUflex.
5. Acknowledgements
6. Authors (Full List)
Qilei Wang (editor)
ZTE
Nanjing, China
Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn
Radha Valiveti (editor)
Infinera Corp
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Email: rvaliveti@infinera.com
Haomian Zheng (editor)
Huawei
CN
EMail: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Huub van Helvoort
Hai Gaoming B.V
EMail: huubatwork@gmail.com
Sergio Belotti
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
Nokia
EMail: sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Iftekhar Hussain
Infinera Corp
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Email: IHussain@infinera.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
7. Contributors
Rajan Rao, Infinera Corp, Sunnyvale, USA, rrao@infinera.com
Fatai Zhang, Huawei,zhangfatai@huawei.com
Italo Busi, Huawei,italo.busi@huawei.com
Zheyu Fan, Huawei, fanzheyu2@huawei.com
Dieter Beller, Nokia, Dieter.Beller@nokia.com
Yuanbin Zhang, ZTE, Beiing, zhang.yuanbin@zte.com.cn
Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, zali@cisco.com
Daniel King, d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Manoj Kumar, Cisco Systems, manojk2@cisco.com
Antonello Bonfanti, Cisco Systems, abonfant@cisco.com
Akshaya Nadahalli, Cisco Systems, anadahal@cisco.com
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
None.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[ITU-T_G709.1]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.709.1: Flexible OTN short-reach interface;
2016", , 2016.
[ITU-T_G709_2012]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.709: Optical Transport Network Interfaces;
02/2012", http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
G..709-201202-S/en, February 2012.
[ITU-T_G709_2016]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.709: Optical Transport Network Interfaces;
07/2016", http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
G..709-201606-P/en, July 2016.
[ITU-T_G872]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.872: The Architecture of Optical Transport
Networks; 2017", http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.872/en,
January 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>.
[RFC7138] Ceccarelli, D., Ed., Zhang, F., Belotti, S., Rao, R., and
J. Drake, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for
GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport
Networks", RFC 7138, DOI 10.17487/RFC7138, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7138>.
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk]
Hussain, I., Valiveti, R., Pithewan, K., Wang, Q.,
Andersson, L., Zhang, F., Chen, M., Dong, J., Du, Z.,
zhenghaomian@huawei.com, z., Zhang, X., Huang, J., and Q.
Zhong, "GMPLS Routing and Signaling Framework for Flexible
Ethernet (FlexE)", draft-izh-ccamp-flexe-fwk-00 (work in
progress), October 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Qilei Wang (editor)
ZTE
Nanjing
CN
Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn
Radha Valiveti (editor)
Infinera Corp
Sunnyvale
USA
Email: rvaliveti@infinera.com
Haomian Zheng (editor)
Huawei
CN
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Huub van Helvoort
Hai Gaoming B.V
Email: huubatwork@gmail.com
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft B100G Extensions December 2018
Sergio Belotti
Nokia
Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Wang, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 18]