Page - 1IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Evolutive OTNs control draft-fuxh-ccamp-gmpls-extension-for-evolutive-otn-03.txt.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CCAMP WG, IETF 80th, Prague, Czech Republic draft-gonzalezdedios-subwavelength-framework-00 Framework for GMPLS and path computation support of sub-wavelength.
Advertisements

Flexible Grid Label Format in Wavelength Switched Optical Network
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 MPLS –TP Fault OAM draft-sfv-mpls-tp-fault-00 George Swallow
Page th IETF – Stockholm, Sweden, July 2009 WSON Signal Characteristics and Network Element Compatibility Constraints for GMPLS Greg
CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g txt Fatai Zhang Guoying Zhang Sergio Belotti Daniele Ceccarelli GMPLS Signaling.
IETF 78, Maastricht, Netherlands, July 25-30, 2010Page - 1 Requirement and Framework for Multi Stages Multiplexing Configuration in G.709 network draft-fuxh-ccamp-multi-stage-multiplex-config-req-01.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for OTN and SONET/SDH OAM Configuration draft-kern-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext-00.
Page - 1 Stateful PCE Kexin Tang Xuerong Wang Yuanlin Bao ZTE Corporation draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-01.txt.
Page - 175th IETF - Stockholm, Sweden, July 2009 GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Evolutive OTNs control draft-ceccarellifuxh-ccamp-gmpls-extensions-for-evolutive-otn-00.txt.
RSVP-TE Extensions for SRLG Configuration of FA
ITU-T/OIF Report IETF 76 – Hiroshima – Nov09 L. Ong (Ciena) Thanks to Malcolm Betts & Kam Lam for ITU- T slides.
Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN) draft-bccg-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04 CCAMP WG, IETF 80 th Prague.
LMP Test Messages Extensions for Evolutive OTN draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-test-01 CCAMP WG, IETF 76 th Hiroshima.
OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 OTN draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-02/03 CCAMP WG, IETF 78 th Maastricht.
Page - 1IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Explicit Control of Region Boundary for PCE-Based Inter-Layer draft-lin-pce-ccamp-multilayer-lsp-00.txt.
LMP Behavior Negotiation CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-li-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt Dan Li
RSVP-TE extensions for dynamic hostname traversing OSPF routing areas draft-zheng-ccamp-rsvp-te-dynamic-hostname-00 Zhi Zheng,
Draft-liu-mpls-rsvp-te-gr-frr-00 By H. Autumn Liu & Sriganesh Kini 76 th IETF, Hiroshima Japan.
Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN) draft-bccg-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-03 CCAMP WG, IETF 79 th Beijing.
RSVP-TE extensions for services aware MPLS draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-rsvp-te-ext-00 Xihua Fu, Malcolm Betts, Qilei Wang ZTE Dave McDysan, Andrew Malis.
Requirements for PCE Applied in OTN Networks draft-zhang-pce-reqs-for-otn-00.txt Fei Zhang Feng Gao Yuanlin Bao ZTE Corporation.
IETF 77, Maastricht, Netherlands, July 25-30, 2010Page - 1 Information Modele Electro-Optical Multi- Layer G.709 network draft-xie-ccamp-multi-elec-opt-network-ext-req-00.
78th IETF CCAMP Working Group1 CCAMP Working Group Online Agenda and Slides at: Tools start page:
1 GMPLS RSVP-TE Recovery Extension for data plane initiated reversion and protection timer signalling draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-04.txt draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-04.txt.
OSPF Extensions in support of O-E-O pools in GMPLS controlled all-optical networks draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-01 Pierre Peloso, Julien Meuric, Giovanni.
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05.txt.
Page - 1 Stateful PCE Kexin Tang Wang Xuerong Cao Xuping ZTE Corporation draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt.
IETF 77, Anaheim, March 21-26, 2010Page - 1 Requirements for Path Ownership Transfer between Management Plane and Control Plane in a MPLS-TP network draft-bao-mpls-tp-path-transfer-reqs-00.txt.
OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS Control of Evolutive G.709 OTN
76th IETF Hiroshima, November CCAMP Working Group Status Chairs: Lou Berger Deborah Brungard.
G : DCM Signaling Mechanism Using GMPLS RSVP-TE ITU-T Workshop on IP-Optical, Chitose, Japan 7/11/2002 Dimitrios Pendarakis, Tellium, Inc. ITU-T.
CR-LDP for ASON Signalling Session 7 – Signalling and Routing Presented by: Stephen Shew Date:
ITU-T Solutions Session 2 – Switched Optical Networks Presented by: Stephen Shew Date:
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching: An Overview of Signaling Enhancements and Recovery Techniques IEEE Communications Magazine July 2001.
Advance in Design and Implementation of VLSR in Support of E2E VLAN DRAGON Meeting, 2005 Xi Yang Information Sciences Institute University of Southern.
1 Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-05 Author.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—8-1 MPLS TE Overview Understanding MPLS TE Components.
Requirement and protocol for WSON and non-WSON interoperability CCAMP WG, IETF 81th, Quebec City, Canada draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wson-interoperability-00.
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for G.709-v3 (draft-khuzema-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g txt ) Rajan Rao ( Khuzema Pithewan.
IETF 64 – Vancouver, November 2005 GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Transfer of Ownership of Label Switched Paths Between the Management and Control.
CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-00.txt Fatai Zhang Dan Li Jianrui.
IETF68 CCAMP1 GMPLS Control of Ethernet Forwarding Don Fedyk Loa Andersson
Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN) draft-bccg-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-01 CCAMP WG, IETF 78 th Maastricht.
Operating VCAT and LCAS with GMPLS draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01 Greg Bernstein: Diego.
CCAMP WG, IETF 81th, Quebec City, Canada draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g txt Authors & Contributors GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Evolving.
CCAMP WG, IETF 76th, Hiroshima, Japan draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-discovery-02.txt LMP extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Fatai Zhang.
Framework for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-05 CCAMP WG, IETF 82 nd Taipei.
IETF-70th Vancouver1 Extensions to GMPLS RSVP-TE for Bidirectional Lightpath with the Same Wavelength draft-xu-rsvpte-bidir-wave-01 Sugang Xu, Hiroaki.
CCAMP WG, IETF 75th, Stockholm, Sweden draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g txt Fatai Zhang Guoying
June 4, 2003Carleton University & EIONGMPLS - 1 GMPLS Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Vijay Mahendran Sumita Ponnuchamy Christy Gnanapragasam.
Label Distribution Protocols LDP: hop-by-hop routing RSVP-TE: explicit routing CR-LDP: another explicit routing protocol, no longer under development.
RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Explicit Control of LSP Boundary in MRN/MLN draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-01.txt draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-01.txt.
OIF Liaison on Routing IETF 75 – Stockholm – Jul ‘09 L. Ong (Ciena)
CCAMP WG, IETF 79th, Beijing, China draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-03.txt Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks.
GMPLS extensions to communicate latency as a Traffic Engineering performance metric draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt.
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for G
Zhenbin Li, Li Zhang(Huawei Technologies)
Jean-Philippe Vasseur – Cisco Systems Raymond Zhang - Infonet
ASON routing implementation and testing ASON routing extensions
RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Explicit Control of LSP Boundary in MRN/MLN draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-02.txt Xihua Fu Qilei Wang.
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Evolving G.709 OTN Control
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Evolving G.709 OTN Control
Guard Bands requirements for GMPLS controlled optical networks
Qilei Wang & Yuanbin Zhang Huub van Helvoort (New co-author)
Iftekhar Hussain (Presenter),
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
CHAPTER 8 Network Management
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
ISIS Extensions for FlexE Link Advertisement
Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Presentation transcript:

Page - 1IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Evolutive OTNs control draft-fuxh-ccamp-gmpls-extension-for-evolutive-otn-03.txt Xihua Fu Ming Ke Yuanlin Bao ZTE Corporation

Page - 2IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Changes from 00.txt Signal Type is only extended for ODU0, ODU2e, ODUflex and ODU4. NMC is redefined in terms of the current G.709 Amendment 3. Interworking between RFC4328 and new extension could be an automatic adaptation.RFC4328

Page - 3IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Extension of Signal Type Value Type Not significant 1 ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps) 2 ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps) 3 ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps) 4 Reserved (for future use) 5 Reserved (for future use) 6 OCh at 2.5 Gbps 7 OCh at 10 Gbps 8 OCh at 40 Gbps 9 OCh at 100 Gbps 10 ODU0 11 ODU2e 12 ODUflex 13 ODU Reserved (for future use)

Page - 4IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Extension of NMC NMC Description ODU0 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU1. 1 ODU0 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU2. 1 ODU0 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU3. 1 ODU0 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU4. 1 ODU1 is mapped into 2.5G tributary slots of OPU2. 1 ODU1 is mapped into 2.5G tributary slots of OPU3. 2 ODU1 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU2. 2 ODU1 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU3. 2 ODU1 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU4. 4 ODU2 is mapped into 2.5G tributary slots of OPU3. 8 ODU2 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU3. 8 ODU2 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU4. 9 ODU2e is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU3. 8 ODU2e is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU4. 8 ODU2e is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU3e2. [Non Normative] 4 ODU2e is mapped into 2.5G tributary slots of OPU3e1. [Non Normative] 31 ODU3 is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU ODUflex is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU ODUflex is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU ODUflex is mapped into 1.25G tributary slots of OPU4.

Page - 5IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Extension of Generalized Label New Generalized Label format is just defined for the new ODUk application (i.e., ODU0, 1.25G ODU1, 1.25G ODU2, 1.25G ODU3, ODU2e, ODUflex and ODU4) It is a supplement and extension of RFC4328.RFC4328

Page - 6IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Problem for other label format In case of multiplication (all the Composed Signals must be part of the same LSP), the explicit ordered of all labels is very important for the cross-connection configuration. Each label indicates a component (ODUj tributary slot) of the multiplexed signal. The timeslots order can not be represented in terms of the bitmap label format. Otherwise there must be more bytes for label representation.

Page - 7IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Interworking with RFC4328 When a new Path (Resv) message is to be received on a upstream (downstream) TE link, the Generalized Label format is identified by the Signal Type and NMC pair in Traffic Parameters. Signal Type NMC Label Format ODU0 * [New Label Format] ODU2e * [New Label Format] ODUflex * [New Label Format] ODU4 * [New Label Format] ODU1 2 [New Label Format] ODU2 8 [New Label Format] ODU3 31 [New Label Format] ODU1 1 [RFC4328] ODU2 4 [RFC4328] ODU1 0 [RFC4328] ODU2 0 [RFC4328] ODU3 0 [RFC4328]

Page - 8IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Interworking with RFC4328 When a new Path (Resv) message is to be sent for a downstream (upstream) TE link, the format of Generalized Label is determined by the Signal Type and/or multiplex structure of the interface port. –If the Signal Type is ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 and the port is operated only in 2.5G TS mode or directly mapping into OTU1, OTU2 or OTU3, the format of Generalized Label must be based on RFC4328.RFC4328

Page - 9IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Interworking with RFC4328 –If the Signal Type is ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 and the port is operated only in 1.25G TS or 2.5G TS and 1.25G TS mode, the format of Generalized Label is bases on the operated mode of far-end interface port of this link. The tributary slot size can be carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor(s) and one LSR can use its TED to determine the ISCD of far-end. Then it can know the tributary slot size of far-end. It shoud not depend on any configuration and discovery function.

Page - 10IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Interworking with RFC4328 If the LSR could not know the tributary slot size of far-end, it should try 1.25G TS mode firstly and the format of Generalized Label is based on new format. When a LSR receives a Generalized Label Request and could not support the requested Signal Type and/or NMC values. It must generate a PathErr including the crankback information with a "Traffic Control Error/Service unsupported" indication. Then the ingress node will attemp to singal again with the same routing. So this node will try 2.5G TS operated mode and the format of Generalized Label is based on RFC4328.RFC4328

Page - 11IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 According to G.709 Amd 3, an automatic adaptation for interworking between 1.25G and 2.5G capable equipment is foreseen. Interworking between RFC4328 and new extension could be also an automatic adaptation.RFC4328 There is no necessary coordination for the tributary slot size between two ends of one link by using automatic discovery. Otherwise we have to introduce a new discovery function and maintain the tributary size relationship for each link. Furthermore we can know the tirbutary size of far-end by IGP database. We dont need a new automatic discovery function for interworking! Problem for other method

Page - 12IETF 76, Hiroshima, November 8-13, 2009 Next Step… Further discussion must be needed for one general solution in the long term.