Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Lee, Ed.
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard
Request for Comments: 8780 Samsung Electronics
Category: Standards Track R. Casellas, Ed.
Expires: September 1, 2019
ISSN: 2070-1721 CTTC
March 1, 2019
PCEP
July 2020
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for WSON
Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength
Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17 (RWA)
Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element communication Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). (WSONs).
Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
assignment (RWA) an RWA process. From a path
computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of
determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and
forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation.
Status of this 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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product 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
(IETF). It represents the consensus of six
months the IETF community. It has
received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other documents
at any time. It the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work available in progress."
The list Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2019.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8780.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 2020 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)
(https://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. Terminology....................................................3 Introduction
2. Requirements Language..........................................3 Terminology
3. Introduction...................................................3 Requirements Language
4. Encoding of a an RWA Path Request.................................6 Request
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object.........................7 Object
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV..................................9 TLV
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.....................9 TLV
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field...............................12 Field
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Field........................14 Constraint Field
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions................15 Restrictions
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion.........................16 Exclusion
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion.........................18 Inclusion
5. Encoding of a an RWA Path Reply..................................19 Reply
5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV................................19 TLV
5.2. Error Indicator..........................................20 Indicator
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator........................................21 Indicator
6. Manageability Considerations..................................22 Considerations
6.1. Control of Function and Policy...........................22 Policy
6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring........................22 Monitoring
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation..............................22 Operation
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components22 Components
6.5. Impact on Network Operation..............................23 Operation
7. Security Considerations.......................................23 Considerations
8. IANA Considerations...........................................23 Considerations
8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object............23 Object
8.2. WA Object Flag Field.....................................23 Field
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV...................24 TLV
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV......24 TLV
8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values......25 Values
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV..................25 TLV
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field.....................25 Field
8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV...........26 TLV
8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV..........................26 Information TLV
8.10. New No-Path Reasons.....................................27 Bit Flag for NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values........................27 Error-Values
8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object.............28 Object
8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object.............28 Object
8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
..............................................................28
9. Acknowledgments...............................................29
10. References...................................................29
10.1. References
9.1. Normative References....................................29
10.2. References
9.2. Informative References..................................30
11. Contributors.................................................32 References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses...............................................33
3. Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include
path computation requests Path
Computation Requests (PCReqs) and path computation replies Path Computation Replies (PCReps)
as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a
PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. Engineering (TE).
A PCC is said to be any network component that makes such a request
and may be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element optical switching element within a
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can
be located anywhere within the network, network and may be within an optical
switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) (NMS), or an
Operational Support System (OSS), or it may be an independent network
server.
This document provides the PCEP extensions for the support of Routing
and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical
Networks (WSON) (WSONs) based on the requirements specified in [RFC6163] and
[RFC7449].
WSON refers to WDM based WDM-based optical networks in which switching is
performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal.
The devices used in WSONs that are able to switch signals based on
signal wavelength are known as Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). WSONs
can be transparent or translucent. A transparent optical network is
made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
wavelength to another, all within the optical domain. On the other
hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators (Re-
amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) (reamplification,
reshaping, and retiming) that are sparsely placed. The main function
of the 3R regenerators is to convert one optical wavelength to
another.
A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
An LSC Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent
segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators typically with
electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion. Each
transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical
path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links links, and the path
should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such a case, the
optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a an LSC LSP and
transparent segments (optical paths).
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |I1 | | | | | | I2| |
| |o------| |-------[(3R) ]------| |--------o| |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(X LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC LSC) (LSC X)
<-------> <-------> <-----> <------->
<-----------------------><---------------------->
Transparent Segment Transparent Segment
<------------------------------------------------->
LSC LSP
Figure 1 1: Illustration of a an LSC LSP and transparent segments Transparent Segments
Note that two transparent segments within a WSON LSP do not need to
operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
capabilities). Two optical channels that share a common fiber link
cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, otherwise, the two signals
would interfere with each other. Note that advanced additional
multiplexing techniques such as polarization based polarization-based multiplexing are
not addressed in this document since the physical layer physical-layer aspects are
not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper
wavelength on a path is an essential requirement in the optical path
computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion, the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a LSC Label Switched Path (LSP)
an LSP may use different wavelengths on different links along its
route from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted that
wavelength converters may be limited due to their relatively high
cost, while the number of WDM channels that can be supported in a
fiber is also limited. As a WSON can be composed of network nodes
that cannot perform wavelength conversion, nodes with limited
wavelength conversion, and nodes with full wavelength conversion
abilities, wavelength assignment is an additional routing constraint
to be considered in all optical path computation.
For example (see Figure 1), within a translucent WSON, a an LSC LSP may
be established between interfaces I1 and I2, spanning 2 two transparent
segments (optical paths) where the wavelength continuity constraint
applies (i.e. (i.e., the same unique wavelength must be assigned to the LSP
at each TE link of the segment). If the LSC LSP induced a Forwarding
Adjacency / TE link, the switching capabilities of the TE link would
be (X X) X), where X refers to the switching capability of I1 and I2.
For example, X can be Packet Switch Capable (PSC), Time Division Time-Division
Multiplexing (TDM), etc.
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [PCEP-GMPLS] [RFC8779] for generic properties such as
label, label-set label set, and label assignment assignment, noting that a wavelength is a
type of label. Wavelength restrictions and constraints are also
formulated in terms of labels per [RFC7579].
The optical modulation properties, which are also referred to as
signal compatibility, are already considered in the signaling in
[RFC7581] and [RFC7688]. In order to improve the signal quality and
limit some optical effects effects, several advanced modulation processing
capabilities are used by the mechanisms specified in this document.
These modulation capabilities contribute not only contribute to optical signal
quality checks but also constrain the selection of sender and
receiver, as they should have matching signal processing
capabilities. This document includes signal compatibility
constraints as part of RWA path computation. That is, the signal
processing capabilities (e.g., modulation and Forward Error
Correction (FEC)) indicated by means of optical interface class the Optical Interface Class
(OIC) must be compatible between the sender and the receiver of the
optical path across all optical elements.
This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
of RWA path computation. See [RFC6566] for the framework for optical
impairments.
1.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC4655] and
[RFC5440].
2.
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. Encoding of a an RWA Path Request
Figure 2 shows one typical PCE based PCE-based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Process (R&WA). With this architecture,
the two processes of routing and wavelength assignment are accessed
via a single PCE. This architecture is the base architecture
specified in [RFC6163] [RFC6163], and the PCEP extensions that are specified in
this document are based on this architecture.
+----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |
+-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+
Figure 2 2: Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Architecture
4.1. Wavelength Assignment (WA) Object
Wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by different
means:
(a) By means of of:
(a) Explicit Label Control [RFC3471] where the PCE allocates which
label to use for each interface/node along the path. The
allocated labels MAY appear after an interface route subobject.
(b) By means of a A Label Set where the PCE provides a range of potential labels
to allocate be allocated by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength assignment.
Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, a PC
Request PCReq
SHOULD convey the heuristic / or mechanism used for the allocation.
The
Per [RFC5440], the format of a PCReq message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the
Wavelength Assignment (WA) object is as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
Where:
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<END-POINTS>
<WA>
[other optional objects...]
If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
the END-POINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. [RFC8779]. The WA Object object is
mandatory in this document. Orderings for the other optional objects
are irrelevant.
For the WA object, the Object-Class is (TBD1) (To be assigned by IANA).
WA 42, and the Object-Type is 1.
The format of the WA object body 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 3: WA Object
o
Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
ignored on receipt.
o
Flags field (16 bits) bits): One flag bit is allocated as follows:
-
M (Mode - 1 (1 bit): Wavelength Allocation Mode. The M bit is used to
indicate the mode of wavelength assignment. When the M bit is
set to 1, this indicates that the label assigned by the PCE
must be explicit. That is, the selected way to convey the
allocated wavelength is by means of Explicit Label Control for
each hop of a computed LSP. Otherwise (M bit is set to 0), the
label assigned by the PCE need not be explicit (i.e., it can be
suggested in the form of
label set Label Set objects in the corresponding
response, to allow distributed WA. If M is 0, the PCE MUST
return a Label Set Field as described in Section 2.6 of
[RFC7579] in the response. See Section 5 of this document for
the encoding discussion of a Label Set Field in a PCRep
message.
All unused flags SHOULD be zeroed. IANA is to create has created a new
registry to manage the Flag Flags field of the WA object.
o
TLVs (variable). (variable): In the TLVs field, the following two TLVs are
defined. At least one TLV MUST be present.
-
Wavelength Selection TLV: A TLV of The type (TBD2) with of this TLV is 8, and it has a
fixed length of 32 bits indicating bits. This TLV indicates the wavelength
selection. See Section 4.2 for details.
-
Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV: A TLV of The type (TBD3)
with of this TLV is 9, and it has
a variable length indicating length. This TLV indicates wavelength restrictions.
See Section 4.3 for details.
4.2. Wavelength Selection TLV
The Wavelength Selection TLV is used to indicate the wavelength
selection constraint in regard to the order of wavelength assignment
to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when the M bit
is set in the WA Object object specified in Section 4.1. This TLV MUST NOT
be used when the M bit is cleared.
The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV WavelengthSelection sub-
TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]. IANA is to allocate has allocated a new TLV
type, type
for the Wavelength Selection TLV type (TBD2). (Type 8).
4.3. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a wavelength assignment, the requester
(PCC) MUST specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. This
restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the
tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other
maintenance related
maintenance-related constraints. Note that if the LSP LSC LSP spans
different segments, the PCE must have mechanisms to know the
tunability restrictions of the involved wavelength converters / converters/
regenerators, e.g. e.g., by means of the Traffic Engineering Database
(TED) either via either IGP or Network Management System (NMS). NMS. Even if the PCE knows the tunability of
the transmitter, the PCC must be able to apply additional constraints
to the request.
The format of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is as follows:
<Wavelength Restriction Constraint> Restriction> ::=
(<Action> <Count> <Reserved>
<Link Identifiers> <Wavelength Restriction>)...
Where Constraint>)...
Where:
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
See Section 4.3.1. 4.3.1 for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field. Identifier field.
These fields (i.e., <Action>, <Link Identifiers> Identifiers>, and <Wavelength
Restriction>,
Constraint>, etc.) MAY appear together more than once to be able to
specify multiple actions and their restrictions.
IANA is to allocate has allocated a new TLV type, type for the Wavelength Restriction
Constraint TLV type (TBD3).
(Type 9).
The TLV data is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers Field |
// . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field Constraint |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ . . . . ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers Field |
// . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Wavelength Restriction Field Constraint |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 4: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding
o
Action (8 bits):
o 0 -
0: Inclusive List indicates List. Indicates that one or more link identifiers
are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
that is part of the set.
o 1 -
1: Inclusive Range indicates Range. Indicates that the Link Set defines a range
of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are considered
to be part of the set. A value of zero in either position
indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding portion
of the range.
o 2-255 - For future use
2-255: Unassigned.
IANA is to create has created a new registry to manage the Action values of the
Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV.
If a PCE receives an unrecognized Action value, the PCE MUST send
a
PCErr PCEP Error (PCErr) message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) object with Error-
Type=27 and an
Error-value (Error-value=3). Error-value=3. See Section 5.2 for details.
Note that "links" are assumed to be bidirectional.
o
Count (8 bits):
The number of the link identifiers identifiers.
Note that a PCC MAY add a Wavelength restriction that applies to
all links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a
set of wavelengths.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the
same type.
o
Reserved (16 bits):
Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and ignored on
receipt.
o
Link Identifiers:
Identifies each link ID for which restriction is applied. The
length is dependent on the link format and the Count field. See
Section 4.3.1. 4.3.1 for encoding of the Link Identifier encoding.
o field.
Wavelength Restriction: Constraint:
See Section 4.3.2. 4.3.2 for the encoding of the Wavelength
Restriction Field encoding. Constraint
field.
Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not exactly
two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier types,
no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate errors
associated with this encoding, a PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type=TBD8 Error-Type=27 and Error-value=3. See Section
5.1 5.2 for the
details.
4.3.1. Link Identifier Field
The link identifier Link Identifier field can be an IPv4 [RFC3630], IPv6 [RFC5329] [RFC5329],
or unnumbered interface ID [RFC4203].
<Link Identifier> ::=
<IPv4 Address> | <IPv6 Address> | <Unnumbered IF ID>
The encoding of each case is as follows:
IPv4 Address Field 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 = 1 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6
Figure 5: IPv4 Address Field
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 = 2 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID
Figure 6: IPv6 Address Field
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 = 3 | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Node ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o
Figure 7: Unnumbered Interface ID Address Field
Type (8 bits): It indicates Indicates the type of the link identifier.
o
Reserved (24 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed and
ignored on receipt.
o
Link Identifier: When the Type field is 1, 4-bytes a 4-byte IPv4 address is
encoded; when the Type field is 2, 16-bytes a 16-byte IPv6 address is
encoded; and when the Type field is 3, a tuple of 4-bytes a 4-byte TE node
ID and 4-bytes a 4-byte interface ID is encoded.
The Type field is extensible and matches to the IANA "TE_LINK Object Class
type name space (Value 11)" registry created for the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link
Object Class Type name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-
parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15. See Section 8.14
for the request to update the (see [LMP-PARAM]). IANA has added an
introductory text of note before the aforementioned registry to note stating that the
values have additional usage for the Link Identifier Type field. See
Section 8.14.
4.3.2. Wavelength Restriction Constraint Field
The Wavelength Restriction Field Constraint field of the Wavelength Restriction
Constraint TLV is
encoded as a Label Set field Field as specified in Section 2.6 in of [RFC7579]
with the base label encoded as a 32 bit 32-bit LSC label, as defined in
[RFC6205]. The Label Set format is repeated here for convenience,
with the base label internal structure included. See [RFC6205] for a
description of Grid, C.S, Identifier Channel Spacing (C.S.), Identifier, and n, as
well as and
see [RFC7579] for the details of each action.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action| Num Labels | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S C.S. | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional fields as necessary per action |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Wavelength Constraint Field
Action (4 bits):
0 -
0: Inclusive List
1 -
1: Exclusive List
2 -
2: Inclusive Range
3 -
3: Exclusive Range
4 -
4: Bitmap Set
Num Labels (12 bits):
It is generally the number of labels. It has a specific meaning
depending on the action value.
Length (16 bits):
It is the length in bytes of the entire Wavelength
Restriction Constraint
field.
Identifier (9 bits):
The Identifier is always set to 0. If PCC receives the value of
the identifier other than 0, it will ignore.
See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3 2.6.1-2.6.3 of [RFC7579] for details on additional field
discussion for each action.
4.4. Signal Processing Capability Restrictions
Path computation for WSON includes the checking of signal processing
capabilities at each interface against requested capability; the PCE
MUST have mechanisms to know the signal processing capabilities at
each interface, e.g. e.g., by means of the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) either via either IGP or Network Management System (NMS). NMS.
Moreover, a PCC should be able to indicate additional restrictions to
signal processing compatibility, either on either the endpoint or any given
link.
The supported signal processing capabilities considered in the RWA
Information Model [RFC7446] are:
o
* Optical Interface Class List
o
* Bit Rate
o
* Client Signal
The Bit Rate bit rate restriction is already expressed in [PCEP-GMPLS] in the BANDWIDTH object. object
in [RFC8779].
In order to support the Optical Interface Class optical interface class information and the
Client Signal information
client signal information, new TLVs are introduced as endpoint-
restriction endpoint
restrictions in the END-POINTS type Generalized endpoint:
o Endpoint:
* Client Signal Information TLV
o
* Optical Interface Class List TLV
The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint Generalized Endpoint is extended as follows:
<endpoint-restriction> ::=
<LABEL-REQUEST> <label-restriction-list>
<label-restriction-list> ::= <label-restriction>
[<label-restriction-list>]
<label-restriction> ::= (<LABEL-SET>|
[<Wavelength Restriction Constraint>] Restriction>]
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>])
Where
Where:
<signal-compatibility-restriction> ::=
[<Optical Interface Class List>] [<Client Signal>] Signal Information>]
The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV is defined in Section 4.3.
A new TLV for the Optical Interface Class List TLV (TBD5) (Type 11) is
defined, and defined; the
encoding of the value part of the Optical Interface
Class List this TLV is described in Section 4.1 of
[RFC7581].
A new TLV for the Client Signal Information TLV (TBD6) (Type 12) is defined,
and defined; the
encoding of the value part of the Client Signal Information this TLV is described in Section 4.2 of
[RFC7581].
4.4.1. Signal Processing Exclusion
The PCC/PCE should be able to exclude particular types of signal
processing along the path in order to handle client restriction or
multi-domain path computation. [RFC5440] [RFC5521] defines how the Exclude
Route Object (XRO) subobject is used. In this draft, document, we add two
new XRO Signal Processing Exclusion Subobjects. subobjects.
The first XRO subobject type (TBD9) (8) is the Optical Interface Class
List Field List,
which is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=TBD9 Type=8 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optical Interface Class List //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 9: Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition definitions of X, Length Length, and Attribute.
Type (7 bits): The Type type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field.
The TLV Type value (TBD9) is to be assigned by the field.
IANA has assigned value 8 for the Optical Interface Class List XRO Subobject Type.
subobject type.
Reserved bits (8 bits) bits): These are for future use and SHOULD be
zeroed and ignored on receipt.
The
Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute values; the
only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 (Interface)
or 1 (Node).
The
Optical Interface Class List List: This field is encoded as described in
Section 4.1 of [RFC7581].
The second XRO subobject type (TBD10) (9) is the Client Signal
Information Information,
which is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type=TBD10 Type=9 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Client Signal Information //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 10: Client Signal Information XRO Subobject
Refer to [RFC5521] for the definition definitions of X, Length Length, and Attribute.
Type (7 bits): The Type type of the Signaling Processing Exclusion Field.
The TLV Type value (TBD10) is to be assigned by the field.
IANA has assigned value 9 for the Client Signal Information XRO Subobject Type.
subobject type.
Reserved bits (8 bits) bits): These are for future use and SHOULD be
zeroed and ignored on receipt.
The
Attribute field (8 bits): [RFC5521] defines several Attribute values; the
only permitted Attribute values for this field are 0 (Interface)
or 1 (Node).
The
Client Signal Information Information: This field is encoded as described in
Section 4.2 of [RFC7581].
The XRO needs to support the new Signaling Processing Exclusion XRO
Subobject
subobject types:
Type XRO Subobject Type
TBD9
8: Optical Interface Class List
TBD10
9: Client Signal Information
4.4.2. Signal Processing Inclusion
Similar to the XRO subobject, the PCC/PCE should be able to include
particular types of signal processing along the path in order to
handle client restriction or multi-domain path computation.
[RFC5440] defines how the Include Route Object (IRO) subobject is
used. In this draft, document, we add two new Signal Processing Inclusion
Subobjects.
subobjects.
The IRO needs to support the new IRO Subobject subobject types (TBD11 (8 and
TBD12) 9) for
the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]:
Type IRO Subobject Type
TBD11
8: Optical Interface Class List
TBD12
9: Client Signal Information
The encoding of the Signal Processing Inclusion subobjects is similar
to the process in Section 4.4.1 where the 'X' field is replaced with
the 'L'
field, field; all the other fields remains remain the same. The 'L' field
is described in [RFC3209].
5. Encoding of a an RWA Path Reply
This section provides the encoding of a an RWA Path Reply for a
wavelength allocation request as discussed in Section 4.
5.1. Wavelength Allocation TLV
Recall that wavelength allocation can be performed by the PCE by
different means:
(a) By
means of of:
(a) Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates which label
to use for each interface/node along the path.
(b) By means of a A Label Set where the PCE provides a range of potential labels
to allocate be allocated by each node along the path.
Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.
The type for the Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See 10 (see Section 8.4).
Note that this TLV is used for both (a) and (b). (b) above. The TLV data
is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flag Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier Field |
// . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Wavelength(s) |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 11: Wavelength Allocation TLV Encoding
o
Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use.
o
Flags field (16 bits) bits): One flag bit is allocated as follows:
.
M (Mode): 1 bit
- 0 indicates (1 bit): Wavelength Allocation Mode.
0: Indicates the allocation is under Explicit relies on the use of Label Control.
- 1 indicates Sets.
1: Indicates the allocation is expressed in done using Explicit Label Sets.
Control.
IANA is to create has created a new registry to manage the Flag Flags field (TBD14) of the
Wavelength Allocation TLV.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type.
o
Link Identifier: Identifies the interface to which the assignment
wavelength(s) is applied. See Section 4.3.1. 4.3.1 for encoding of the
Link Identifier encoding.
o field.
Allocated Wavelength(s): Indicates the allocated wavelength(s) to be
associated with the Link Identifier. link identifier. See Section 4.3.2 for
encoding details.
This TLV is carried in a PCRep message as an attribute Attribute TLV [RFC5420]
in the Hop Attribute Subobjects subobjects [RFC7570] in the ERO Explicit Route
Object (ERO) [RFC5440].
5.2. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the RWA request, a new Error Type
(TBD8) Error-Type
27 (WSON RWA Error) and subsequent error-values Error-values are defined as
follows for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TBD8) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows:
o Error-Type=TBD8; object:
* Error-Type=27; Error-value=1: if If a PCE receives a an RWA request and
the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) object with Error-Type=27 and an Error-value (Error-
value=1). Error-value=1. The PCE
stops processing the request. The corresponding RWA request MUST
be cancelled canceled at the PCC.
o Error-Type=TBD8;
* Error-Type=27; Error-value=2: if If a PCE receives a an RWA request and
the PCE is not capable of RWA computation, the PCE MUST send a
PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) object with Error-Type=27 and an Error-value (Error-value=2).
Error-value=2. The PCE stops processing the request. The
corresponding RWA computation MUST be
cancelled canceled at the PCC.
o Error-Type=TBD8;
* Error-Type=27; Error-value=3: if If a PCE receives a an RWA request and
there are syntactical encoding errors (e.g., not exactly two link
identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier types, no
matching link for a given identifier, unknown Action value, etc.),
the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-
ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD8) PCEP-ERROR object with
Error-Type=27 and an Error-value (Error-
value=3). Error-value=3.
5.3. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RWA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One
This document defines a new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field
in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV TLV, which is carried in the NO-PATH Object.
o object:
Bit TBD7: 23: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was found that
meets all the constraints (e.g., wavelength restriction, signal
compatibility, etc.) associated with RWA.
6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) RWA with PCE must address the considerations in
the following considerations: subsections.
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
o
* The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuration of the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
o
* The support for WSON RWA.
o
* A set of WSON RWA specific WSON-RWA-specific policies (authorized sender, request
rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP
session the PCEP speaker participates in, or they may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
6.2. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to requirements, aside from those already
listed in section Section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification requirements in addition to
requirements, aside from those already listed in
section Section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
[RFC5440].
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCEP Link-State mechanism [PCEP-LS] may be used to advertise WSON
RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
6.5. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to requirements, aside from those already listed in
section
Section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
this document, document; this document does not introduce any new security
issues. If an operator wishes to keep private the information distributed by WSON,
WSON private, PCEPS (Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for
PCEP) [RFC8253] SHOULD be used.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. IANA has made
allocations from the sub-registries subregistries as described in the following
sections.
8.1. New PCEP Object: Wavelength Assignment Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object object is defined to carry
wavelength assignment related
wavelength-assignment-related constraints. IANA is to allocate has allocated the
following from in the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Object Class subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+====================+======+==========================+===========+
| Object-Class Value | Name Object | Object-Type | Reference
Value Type
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 |
+====================+======+==========================+===========+
| 42 | WA | 0: Reserved | RFC 8780 |
+--------------------+------+--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 1: Wavelength Assignment [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+--------------------+------+--------------------------+-----------+
Table 1
8.2. WA Object Flag Field
As described in Section 4.1, IANA is to create a has created the "WA Object Flag
Field" subregistry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS] to manage the Flag Flags field of
the WA object. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action
[RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o
* Capability description
o
* Defining RFC
The following values are defined in initial contents of this document: registry are shown below. One bit is defined has
been allocated for the WA Object flag defined in this document:
Codespace of the Flag field (WA Object)
+======+============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference
------------------------------------------------- |
+======+============================+===========+
| 0-14 | Unassigned [This.I-D] | |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 15 Explicit Label Control [This.I-D]
8.3. New | Wavelength Allocation Mode | RFC 8780 |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 2
8.3. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Selection TLV
As described in Sections
In Section 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate wavelength
selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from has made the following allocation in the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=======+======================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD2 |
+=======+======================+===========+
| 8 | Wavelength Selection [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+----------------------+-----------+
Table 3
8.4. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Sections
In Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate wavelength restriction constraints.
restrictions. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from has made the following allocation in the "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=======+========================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD3 |
+=======+========================+===========+
| 9 | Wavelength Restriction [This.I-D]
Constraint | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------+-----------+
Table 4
8.5. Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values
As described in Section 4.3, IANA is to allocate a has created the new "Wavelength
Restriction TLV Action Values" subregistry under the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS]
to manage the Action values of the Action field in of the Wavelength
Restriction Constraint TLV. New values are assigned by Standards Action
[RFC8126]. Each value should be tracked with the following
qualities: value, meaning, and defining RFC.
* Value
* Meaning
* Defining RFC
The following values
are defined in initial contents of this document: registry are shown below:
+=======+=================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- |
+=======+=================+===========+
| 0 | Inclusive List [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Inclusive Range [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
| 2-255 Reserved [This.I-D] | Unassigned | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
Table 5
8.6. New PCEP TLV: Wavelength Allocation TLV
As described in
In Section 5.1, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the allocation
of the wavelength(s) by the PCE in response to a request by the PCC.
IANA is to allocate this new TLV from has made the following allocation in "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=======+=======================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD4 |
+=======+=======================+===========+
| 10 | Wavelength Allocation [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+-----------------------+-----------+
Table 6
8.7. Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field
As described in Section 5.1, IANA is to allocate has created a new "Wavelength
Allocation TLV Flag Field" subregistry under the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry [PCEP-NUMBERS] to manage
the Flag Flags field of the Wavelength Allocation TLV. New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o
* Capability description
o
* Defining RFC
One bit is defined for the Wavelength Allocation flag defined in this -
document:
Codespace document. The
initial contents of the Flag field (Wavelength Allocation TLV) this registry are shown below:
+======+============================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference
------------------------------------------------- |
+======+============================+===========+
| 0-14 | Unassigned [This.I-D] | |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 15 | Wavelength Allocation Mode [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 7
8.8. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV
As described in
In Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the optical interface class list. Optical
Interface Class List. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from has made the following allocation in the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=======+==============================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD5 |
+=======+==============================+===========+
| 11 | Optical Interface [This.I-D] Class List | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 8
8.9. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal Information TLV
As described in
In Section 4.4, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the client signal information. Client
Signal Information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from has made the following allocation in the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=======+===========================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD6 |
+=======+===========================+===========+
| 12 | Client Signal Information [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 9
8.10. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Bit Flag for NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
In Section 5.3, a new bit flag are is defined to be carried in the Flags
field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV TLV, which is carried in the NO-PATH Object.
object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible route was
found that meets all the RWA constraints (e.g., wavelength
restriction, signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a an RWA path
computation request.
IANA is to allocate has made the following allocation for this new bit flag from in the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
"NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-
tlv). [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+=====+========================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference
-----------------------------------------------------
TBD7 |
+=====+========================+===========+
| 23 | No RWA constraints met [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-----+------------------------+-----------+
Table 10
8.11. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in
In Section 5.2, new PCEP error codes are defined for WSON RWA errors.
IANA is to allocate from has made the ""PCEP-ERROR following allocations in the "PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).
Error- subregistry [PCEP-NUMBERS]:
+============+================+========================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning Error-Value | Error-value | Reference
Type
---------------------------------------------------------------
TBD8 |
+============+================+========================+===========+
| 27 | WSON RWA Error error | 0: Unassigned [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory memory | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 2: RWA computation [This.I-D]
Not not | RFC 8780 |
| | | supported | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 3: Syntactical [This.I-D]
Encoding | RFC 8780 |
| | | encoding error | |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
| | | 4-255: Unassigned [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+------------+----------------+------------------------+-----------+
Table 11
8.12. New Subobjects for the Exclude Route Object
As described in Section 4.4.1, the "PCEP Parameters"
The "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Exclude
Route Object (XRO). titled "XRO Subobjects" [PCEP-NUMBERS]. Per
Section 4.4.1, IANA is requested to add further has added the following subobjects that can be
carried in the XRO as follows:
Subobject Type XRO:
+=======+==============================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
----------------------------------------------------------
TBD9 |
+=======+==============================+===========+
| 8 | Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D]
TBD10 | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | Client Signal Information [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 12
8.13. New Subobjects for the Include Route Object
As described in Section 4.4.2, the "PCEP Parameters"
The "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects" with an entry for the Include
Route Object (IRO). titled "IRO Subobjects" [PCEP-NUMBERS]. Per
Section 4.4.2, IANA is requested to add further has added the following subobjects that can be
carried in the IRO as follows:
Subobject Type IRO:
+=======+==============================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference
----------------------------------------------------------
TBD11 |
+=======+==============================+===========+
| 8 | Optical Interface Class List [This.I-D]
TBD12 | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | Client Signal Information [This.I-D] | RFC 8780 |
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 13
8.14. Request for Updated Note for LMP TE Link Object Class Type
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the
The "TE_LINK Object Class type name space (Value 11)" registry was
created for the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] for "TE Link Object Class Type
name space": https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-
parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15 is requested for [RFC4204]. As
discussed in Section 4.3.1, IANA has added the updated
introductory following note that at the
top of the "TE_LINK Object Class type name space (Value 11)" registry
[LMP-PARAM]:
These values have additional usage for the Link Identifier Type
field.
10.
9. References
10.1.
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. D., Berger, D. L., Gan, T. D., Li, V. T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001. 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003. 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008. 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, Ed., JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009. 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6205] Tomohiro, O. Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switching Capable
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
RFC 6205,
January, 2011. DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.
[RFC7570] C. Margaria, et al., C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015. 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.
[RFC7579] G. Bernstein and Y. Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015. 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.
[RFC7581] G. Bernstein and Y. Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information
Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC7581, June 2015.
[RFC7689] Bernstein et al., "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks",
RFC 7689, November 2015. 7581, DOI 10.17487/RFC7581, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7581>.
[RFC7688] Y. Lee, Y., Ed. and G. Bernstein, "OSPF Ed., "GMPLS OSPF
Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7688, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7688>.
[RFC7689] Bernstein, G., Ed., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Ed., Martinelli, G.,
and H. Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7689, November 2015. 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7689>.
[RFC8174] B. Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8253] D. Lopez, O. D., Gonzalez de Dios, Q. O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017.
[PCEP-GMPLS] C. 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8779] Margaria, et al., "PCEP extensions C., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., and F.
Zhang, Ed., "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS",
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, work in progress.
10.2. RFC 8779,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8779, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8779>.
9.2. Informative References
[LMP-PARAM]
IANA, "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/>.
[PCEP-LS] Lee, Y., Zheng, H., Ceccarelli, D., Wang, W., Park, P.,
and B. Yoon, "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
State and TE information for Optical Networks", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical-
09, 9 March 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical-09>.
[PCEP-NUMBERS]
IANA, "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC
3471. 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003. 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005. 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005. 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4204>.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. A., Vasseur, G. J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006. 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC5420, February 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009.[RFC5521] 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5521] Oki, E, T. E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009.
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y. and Y., Ed., Bernstein, G. (Editors), G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and PCE Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, March 2011. DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC6566] Lee, Y. Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Li, D., and Berstein, G. (Editors),
Martinelli, "A Framework for the Control of Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) with Impairments",
RFC 6566, DOI 10.17487/RFC6566, March 2012. 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6566>.
[RFC7446] Y. Lee, G. Y., Ed., Bernstein, (Editors), G., Ed., Li, D., and W. Imajuku,
"Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7446, February 2015. 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7446>.
[RFC7449] Y. Lee, G. Y., Ed., Bernstein, (Editors), G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015.
[PCEP-LS] Y. Lee, et al., "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-
State and TE information for Optical Networks", draft-lee-
pce-pcep-ls-optical, work in progress. 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.
[RFC8126] M. Cotton, B. M., Leiba, T,.Narten, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017.
9. 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Julien Meuric, Dhruv
Dhody
Dhody, and Benjamin Kaduk for many helpful comments that greatly
improved the contents of this draft.
11. document.
Contributors
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria
Nokia Siemens Networks
St
St. Martin Strasse 76
Munich,
81541 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
C/ Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid,
28043 Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91 3374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA, USA CA
United States of America
Phone: (510) 573-2237 +1 510 573 2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee, Editor
Huawei Technologies
5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 600
Plano, TX 75024, USA Lee (editor)
Samsung Electronics
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com younglee.tx@gmail.com
Ramon Casellas, Editor (editor)
CTTC PMT Ed B4 Av.
Carl Friedrich Gauss 7
PMT Ed B4 Av.
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) Barcelona
Spain
Phone: (34) +34 936452916
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es