Partitioning and Abstraction Scenarios Andrea Mazzini, Nokia June 18, 2019

Purpose of this contribution This contribution explores possible evolutions of current simplified (semi-opaque) TAPI topology model. References are TAPI_Multilayer_abstraction_model_v1.pptx (Arturo) TAPI Topology & Connectivity Enhancements.pptx (Karthik) All diagrams are intended at same layer network & rate, e.g. ODU4, unless otherwise stated. This version adds some clarifications and two examples starting from “physical view”.

Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level zero (*) Node aspect of FD Link TAPI Context Topology aspect of FD Mapping Observer Service Interface Point A FD (Node) 01.1 A FD (Topology) 03-1 Node Edge Point A1-0 01.1 01-0 01.n 02.1 02-0 02.n (*) Each “level” may be represented through a “AbstractView” object instance.

Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level one, case A Node aspect of FD Link TAPI Context Topology aspect of FD Mapping Observer FD (Node) Service Interface Point A Topology encapsulated by Node A1-0 01.1 A FD (Topology) 03-1 Node Edge Point T-A1-0 The Link connects NEPs. A given NEP exists at a given partitioning/abstraction level. Hence the Link has a “scope” (its Topology) and a “level”. 01.1 C C1-1 01-1 01.n Consider a new attribute, the “abstraction level”. 04-1 B1-1 02.1 03-1 02-1 02.n Link 03-04 has scope in T-A1-0 and exists at abstraction level one

Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level one, case B Node aspect of FD Link TAPI Context Topology aspect of FD Mapping Observer FD (Node) Service Interface Point A Topology encapsulated by Node A1-0 01.1 A FD (Topology) 03-1 Node Edge Point T-A1-0 The Link connects NEPs. A given NEP exists at a given partitioning/abstraction level. Hence the Link has a “scope” (its Topology) and a “level”. 01.1 C C1-1 01-1 01.n Consider a new attribute, the “abstraction level”. 04-1 03-1 B1-1 02.1 06-1 02-1 05-1 02.n Link 03-04 and 5-6 have scope in T-A1-0 and exist at abstraction level one

Example 1: Synchronized Partitioning, level two Node aspect of FD Link TAPI Context Topology aspect of FD Mapping Observer FD (Node) Service Interface Point A 01.1 A FD (Topology) 03-1 Node Edge Point Case A T-A1-0 01.1 T-C1-1 C1-2 01-2 04-1 01.n 11-2 03-1 12-2 16-2 C3-2 T-B1-1 17-2 C4-2 13-2 18-2 04-2 C2-2 15-2 03-2 B1-2 02.1 14-2 02-2 04-2 05-2 03-2 06-2 02.n 06-2 05-2 Links 03-04 and 05-06 have scope in T-A1-0 and exist at abstraction level two Link 03-04 @ level one abstracts Links 03-04 and 05-06 @ level two (in Case A) The NEP 05, 06 appear only when opening level two (in Case A)

Example 2: The Physical View, with “zero” as conventional partitioning level. 01-0 N1-0 07-0 27-0 31-0 N6-0 23-0 02-0 08-0 N4-0 28-0 32-0 11-0 N3-0 21-0 15-0 17-0 19-0 24-0 12-0 N9-0 33-0 03-0 N2-0 29-0 13-0 N5-0 34-0 04-0 09-0 N7-0 16-0 18-0 20-0 25-0 14-0 22-0 05-0 10-0 26-0 N10-0 35-0 06-0 30-0 36-0 Physical View: all shown NEPs are 1:1 with eqp AccessPort, hence Links are 1:1 with PhysicalSpan (ignoring uni/bid property). Note that there could be AccessPorts that do not support NEPs Physical View: could also be defined with respect to physical failures, the (statistically) smaller component that can be broken, cut, disconnected, etc. like a single fibre.

Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, first level. 01-1 N1-1 T2-1 N8-1 07-1 T3-1 27-1 31-1 N6-1 23-1 02-1 08-1 N4-1 28-1 32-1 11-1 N3-1 21-1 15-1 17-1 19-1 24-1 12-1 N9-1 33-1 03-1 N2-1 29-1 13-1 N5-1 34-1 04-1 09-1 16-1 18-1 20-1 14-1 05-1 10-1 T4-1 06-1 25-1 N7-1 N10-1 35-1 22-1 30-1 26-1 36-1 T6-1

Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, second level. 01-2 07-2 N2-2 N3-2 31-2 02-2 08-2 32-2 11-2 21-2 15-2 17-2 19-2 03-2 12-2 33-2 04-2 13-2 34-2 09-2 16-2 18-2 20-2 05-2 14-2 29-2 10-2 06-2 N4-2 25-2 35-2 22-2 36-2 N6-2

Example 2: Aggregation path “equipment oriented”, third level. 01-3 31-3 02-3 32-3 03-3 33-3 04-3 34-3 05-3 35-3 06-3 36-3

Example 3: The Physical View, with “zero” as conventional partitioning level. 01-0 07-0 27-0 31-0 N6-0 23-0 02-0 08-0 N3-0 N4-0 28-0 32-0 11-0 21-0 15-0 17-0 19-0 24-0 12-0 N9-0 33-0 03-0 N2-0 29-0 13-0 N5-0 34-0 04-0 09-0 N7-0 16-0 18-0 20-0 25-0 14-0 22-0 05-0 10-0 26-0 N10-0 35-0 06-0 30-0 36-0 Physical View: all shown NEPs are 1:1 with eqp AccessPort, hence Links are 1:1 with PhysicalSpan (ignoring uni/bid property). Note that there could be AccessPorts that do not support NEPs

Example 3: (Dis)Aggregation path “routing oriented”, first level. 27-1 N8-1 31-1 N6-1 23-1 28-1 32-1 01-1 N1-1 07-1 N4-1 21-1 17-1 19-1 24-1 02-1 08-1 N9-1 33-1 11-1 N31-1 15-1 29-1 N71-1 25-1 12-1 N51-1 34-1 181-1 221-1 37-1 161-1 201-1 39-1 38-1 162-1 182-1 40-1 N52-1 202-1 222-1 13-1 T6-1 N32-1 N72-1 03-1 N2-1 26-1 09-1 14-1 04-1 05-1 10-1 N10-1 35-1 06-1 30-1 T2-1 T4-1 36-1

Example 3: Aggregation path “routing oriented”, second level. 27-2 31-2 N1-2 N3-2 23-2 28-2 32-2 01-2 07-2 24-2 02-2 08-2 33-2 11-2 29-2 25-2 12-2 34-2 37-2 39-2 38-2 40-2 N2-2 13-2 N6-2 03-2 N4-2 26-2 09-2 14-2 04-2 35-2 05-2 10-2 36-2 30-2 06-2 T2-2

Example 3: Aggregation path “routing oriented”, third level. 31-3 32-3 01-3 02-3 33-3 34-3 37-3 39-3 03-3 38-3 N2-3 40-3 04-3 05-3 35-3 06-3 36-3

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 AbstractView for routing purposes AbstractView for equipment/physical view purposes Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 C1’-2 01’’ 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3’-2 16 17’ C4’-2 17 18’ 04’ 13 18 C2’-2 04’ 15 14 06 06

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (1/5) “routing” view “physical” view Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1-3 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3-3 16 17’ 17 C4-3 18’ 18 04’ 13 C2-3 04` 15 14 06 06 Links 19-20 and 17’-18’ abstract resp. 11-16 and 14-15, and provide a different view of Link 17-18

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (2/5) “routing” view “physical” view Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1-3 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3-3 16 17 17’ C4-3 18’ 18 04’ 13 C2-3 04` 15 14 06 06 Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue Links 19-20 and 17’-18’ abstract resp. 11-16 and 14-15, and provide a different view of Link 17-18 19 20 17’ 18’ The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (3/5) “routing” view “physical” view Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1-3 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3-3 16 17 17’ C4-3 18’ 18 04’ 13 C2-3 04` 15 14 06 06 Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue Links 19-20 and 17’-18’ abstract resp. 11-16 and 14-15, and provide a different view of Link 17-18 19 20 17’ 18’ The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (4/5) “routing” view “physical” view Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1-3 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3-3 16 17 17’ C4-3 18’ 18 04’ 13 C2-3 04` 15 14 06 06 Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue Links 19-20 and 17’-18’ abstract resp. 11-16 and 14-15, and provide a different view of Link 17-18 19 20 17’ 18’ The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs 17 18

Example 4: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct levels two of C-1 (5/5) “routing” view “physical” view Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1-3 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3-3 16 17 17’ C4-3 18’ 18 04’ 13 C2-3 04` 15 14 06 06 Single Link with bandwidth split, red and blue Tr-C1-2 01’’’ C1-3 19 20 19’ 12’ 17’ 18’ The “physical” NEPs are split in two logical / abstract NEPs C2-3 13’ 06’ 17’’ 17 18

Example 5: Synchronized Partitioning, distinct abstract views at any level AbstractView for network purposes AbstractView for equipment/physical view purposes T-C1-1 Tn-A1-0 B1-2 03` 05 C3-2 C4-2 C1-2 C2-2 11 14 16 17 18 12 13 15 04` 06 02’` 01’’ T-B1-1 Tp-A1-0 01’ C1’-1 11 11’ 12’ 12 12’’ C3’-1 16’ 16 17 C4’-1 04` 13’ 13 13’’ 18 C2’-1 15 17’ 04` B1’-1 04` 18’ 03` 14 02’ 05 06

Connection End Points and OAM (1/4) TDM technologies, are CEPs relevant even if not ending a Connection (e.g. “unequipped” case)? Not really, “uneq” alarm shall be raised when Connection is expected (hence represented). Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 01’’ C1’-2 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3’-2 16 C4’-2 17’ 17 18’ 04’ 13 18 C2’-2 04’ 15 14 06 06

Connection End Points and OAM (2/4) The CEPs identify the time-slot/label etc. resource used by the Connection. A CEP is positioned in the topology through its supporting NEP. ODU4 CEPs identifying exactly same network resource (time-slot/label etc.) Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 C1’-2 01’’ 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3’-2 16 C4’-2 17’ 17 18’ 04’ 13 18 C2’-2 04’ 15 14 06 06

Connection End Points and OAM (3/4) Different Route ODU4 CEPs identifying exactly same network resource (time-slot/label etc.) Tr-C1-1 C1’-2 Tp-C1-1 01’’ 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3’-2 16 17’ C4’-2 17 18’ 04’ 13 18 C2’-2 04’ 15 14 06 06

Connection End Points and OAM (4/4) CEP abstracting more CEPs? ODU4 CEP of NEP 19 abstracts the three CEPs on the right Actually CEP abstract a sub-topology! Tr-C1-1 Tp-C1-1 C1’-2 01’’ 01’’ 11 19 C2-2 12 C1-2 20 C3’-2 16 C4’-2 17’ 17 18’ 04’ 13 18 C2’-2 04’ 15 14 06 06

How to integrate partitioning/abstraction with layering? To be developed

SIP at NNI, NNI Multi-layer NEP Pool OTSi Connectivity Service C OTSi ODU4 ODU K OTSi OTSi Link OTSi Layer=OTSi Total Capacity=100G Supported CTP Rates= ODU4 Max # CTP instances=1 OTSi SIP for the provisioning of ODU4 ConnectivityService is not allowed in case of Link (NNI case) Pool = yes Layer=OTSi (TTP rate) Total Capacity=400G Supported CTP Rates= ODU4 Max # TTP instances=4 Max # CTP per TTP instances=1

SIP at NNI, NNI Multi-layer NEP Pool ODU4 OTSi ODU OTSi Link OTSi Layer=OTSi Total Capacity=100G Supported CTP Rates= ODU4 Max # CTP instances=1 OTSi SIP for the provisioning of ODU4 ConnectivityService is not allowed in case of Link (NNI case) Pool = yes Layer=OTSi (TTP rate) Total Capacity=400G Supported CTP Rates= ODU4 Max # TTP instances=4 Max # CTP per TTP instances=1

Partitioning All nodes are single layer and rate NEP Pools and Links (2/2) ODU4 Node at higher partitioning level External NEPs, which have a SIP, and/or end a Link Layer A Layer A Y X Layer A Rate A1 Layer A Rate A1 Layer A Rate A1 Layer A Rate A1 NODE 2 Link NODE 1 Node NodeEdgePoint Device ConnectivityServiceEndPoint X ServiceInterfacePoint ConnectivityService Connection Link Transitional Link ConnectionEndPoint A CTP and CTP CTP and TTP TTP CTP Layer ODU Rate ODU4 Layer ODU Rate ODU4 Link In this case the NEP Pool is present on both Nodes, because it aggregates NEP with equivalent transmission features plus topological equivalence. This NEP Pool ends a Link Pool. Pool = yes Layer=ODU4 (TTP rate) Total Capacity=400G Supported CTP Rates= ODU4 Max # TTP instances=4 Max # CTP per TTP instances=1