1. Optical Control Plane Activities in IETF and OIF L. Ong 9 July 2002 Lyong@ciena.com L. Ong 9 July 2002 Lyong@ciena.com

2. 2 Outline Intelligent Optical Networking Goals Protocols Required IETF Organization, History Current work and status OIF UNI 1.0 Specification Future UNI and NNI activities – InterDomain Interface Summary Comparison: Different Focus but Common Goals Intelligent Optical Networking Goals Protocols Required IETF Organization, History Current work and status OIF UNI 1.0 Specification Future UNI and NNI activities – InterDomain Interface Summary Comparison: Different Focus but Common Goals

3. 3 The Problems Labor-intensive processes Error-prone, slow and high operations costs Inflexible protection schemes, fixed-size pipes Limited service levels and poor utilization Every action flows through the central Network Management system Limited scalability, visibility and manageability Labor-intensive processes Error-prone, slow and high operations costs Inflexible protection schemes, fixed-size pipes Limited service levels and poor utilization Every action flows through the central Network Management system Limited scalability, visibility and manageability One Cause of Limitations: Lack of flexibility and intelligence in hardware and software One Cause of Limitations: Lack of flexibility and intelligence in hardware and software Traditional Optical Networking

4. 4 The Solution NETWORK MGMT PLANE NETWORK MGMT PLANE 1. Neighbor Discovery 2. Routing/Topology Dissemination CONTROL PLANE Intelligent Optical Networks Automated Processes, Scalability, Robustness, Efficiency DATA PLANE 3. Connection Signaling OUNI User

5. 5 Intelligent Optical Network Foundations ION Protocol Functions –Discovery Neighbor and link identity and characteristics –Routing/Topology Dissemination Network topology and resource availability –Connection Signaling Automated provisioning and failure recovery Concepts endorsed by every standards body – ITU-T, IETF and OIF Keys to ION/GMPLS/ASON

6. 6 ION-related Standards Activities Charter: Global Telecom Architecture and Standards No. of Members: 189 Member States + 434 Sector Members Core Participants: Global Service Providers, PTTs, ILECs Telecom equipment vendors Goal: International Standards Charter: Global Telecom Architecture and Standards No. of Members: 189 Member States + 434 Sector Members Core Participants: Global Service Providers, PTTs, ILECs Telecom equipment vendors Goal: International Standards Charter: Evolution of the Internet (IP) Architecture Membership: Individuals – community model Core Participants: ISPs, Carriers Router/switch and SW Vendors Goal: Internet Evolution Charter: Evolution of the Internet (IP) Architecture Membership: Individuals – community model Core Participants: ISPs, Carriers Router/switch and SW Vendors Goal: Internet Evolution Charter: Development of Optical Networking Products and Services No. of Members: 312 Principal Members Core Participants: PTTs, ISPs, ILECs, IXCs Optical Networking Vendors Goal: Optical Network Evolution Charter: Development of Optical Networking Products and Services No. of Members: 312 Principal Members Core Participants: PTTs, ISPs, ILECs, IXCs Optical Networking Vendors Goal: Optical Network Evolution

7. IETF IP Networking Standards

8. 8 IETF Optical Standards IETFs Traditional Focus –The Internet: IP and IP Services – routing, transport, applications, security & management Sub-IP Area –Coordinates activities below the IP layer, esp. MPLS/GMPLS –Disbanding soon as work matures

9. 9 IETF GMPLS: History How did GMPLS start? –Outgrowth of MPLS - IP traffic engineering work –Generalized protocols for label-switched path creation Fiber switching Wavelength/Waveband switching Time slot switching (SONET/SDH) Possible Architectures –Flat network – routers and optical systems fully peered –Hierarchical network – routers are optical clients Scope –Support of IP networking over optical transport –Non-IP-related use of GMPLS is out-of-scope

10. 10 IP, MPLS and GMPLS 1.IP: Shortest Path takes all packets 2.MPLS: Traffic Engineering allows flows to be mapped to different paths for better utilization 3.GMPLS: MPLS control protocols could also set up connections in a circuit network

11. 11 IETF Standards Process Working Group –Defines protocols –Approves via email Last Call Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) –Reviews for correctness and desirability –Conducts IETF-wide email Last Call RFC Editor –Final editing and number assignment WG Draft WG Approval WG Approval Individual Draft IETF Approval Proposed Std IETF Approval Proposed Std RFC WG Last Call WG Last Call IETF Last Call IETF Last Call RFC edit Discussion t t Last Call Last Call Proposed Standard Draft Standard Standard

12. 12 IETF GMPLS Status Signaling 1.RSVP-TE extensions – starting IETF Last Call 2.CR-LDP extensions – starting IETF Last Call 3.Extensions for SONET/SDH – still resolving comments Next step would be Proposed Standard, then RFC Link Management LMP – 2 nd WG Last Call Routing OSPF & IS-IS extensions – Currently WG drafts WG Draft WG Approval WG Approval Individual Draft IETF Approval Proposed Std IETF Approval Proposed Std RFC LMP Signaling Routing t t Last Call Last Call Proposed Standard Draft Standard Standard

13. 13 IETF GMPLS Implementation CCAMP WG survey of GMPLS implementation –21 responses Most implement RSVP Subset implement CR-LDP 13 implement SONET/SDH –Many GMPLS implementations in progress Future –Complete core GMPLS specifications –Add features, e.g., restoration/protection –Input from G.ASON, e.g., call and connection separation

14. OIF Optical Network Implementation and deployment

15. 15 OIF History Formed 1998 –(04/98 Cisco and Ciena announcement) Focus: deployment and interoperability Results: –Several physical interfaces specified –UNI 1.0 signaling interface specified (10/01) –Interoperability demonstrations organized Emphasizes carrier optical networking requirements

16. 16 OIF Standards: OIF UNI 1.0 OIF UNI GMPLS LMP RSVP LDP OSPF ISIS ext

17. 17 OIF Optical UNI Progress Work based on IETF GMPLS protocols –Modifications: – UNI = reduced functionality, trust/security – e.g., ATM or ISDN – No routing required –Service enhancements –TNA address – carrier-provisioned interface address – LMP service discovery added – Signaling service object added – Focus on SONET/SDH environment – Subset of LMP and signaling objects – Use of LMP for neighbor discovery expanded UNI 1.0 approved, interoperability events sponsored at Supercomm and other venues Work based on IETF GMPLS protocols –Modifications: – UNI = reduced functionality, trust/security – e.g., ATM or ISDN – No routing required –Service enhancements –TNA address – carrier-provisioned interface address – LMP service discovery added – Signaling service object added – Focus on SONET/SDH environment – Subset of LMP and signaling objects – Use of LMP for neighbor discovery expanded UNI 1.0 approved, interoperability events sponsored at Supercomm and other venues

18. 18 Current Work UNI 2.0 –Extensions for, e.g., multi-homed access, reachability extensions, enhanced security –~19 candidate features NNI –Interface between domains –InterDomain signaling –InterDomain routing (new problems)

19. 19 NNI Work: Closer Look Domain Model Within Domain: homogeneous systems and protocols Different Domains: heterogeneous systems and protocols UNI Carrier A Domain X Domain Y Domain Z Carrier B Generic Interdomain Protocol Intradomain Protocol Interdomain Protocol

20. 20 Domain Model –Networks may be organized as multiple domains: Administrative/security purposes; Scaling purposes; Technology/vendor differences… –InterDomain interface: Hides domain characteristics Advertises summarized information Ideally supports diverse routing

21. 21 Inter-Domain Routing Model Carrier A OSPF PNNI Legacy S S S S S S Inter-Domain protocol Domain Speaker Allows Differing Domains to Interwork Legacy (EMS-controlled) Domains Can Also Interwork Allows Differing Domains to Interwork Legacy (EMS-controlled) Domains Can Also Interwork Reachable addresses Border links and resource availability Services supported (e.g., 1+1, 1:N) Reachable addresses Border links and resource availability Services supported (e.g., 1+1, 1:N)

22. 22 Future Directions –ITU-T G.7715 specification includes interdomain architecture Functions and requirements defined, protocol to follow –IETF Similar concepts in IPO Working Group Interdomain Requirements draft Protocol work still open –OIF NNI Task Force identifying carrier requirements Protocol proposals under discussion –Largely based on existing routing protocols

23. 23 IETF vs. ITU vs. OIF Different focus ITU focuses on architecture IETF focuses on building blocks OIF focuses on applications and interoperability Common goal: better optical networking Recognized need for coordination