[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Internet Engineering Task Force                      D. Hiremagalur, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           G. Grammel, Ed.
Intended status: Experimental                                    Juniper
Expires: September 2, 2018                            G. Galimberti, Ed.
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                R. Kunze
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                           March 1, 2018


Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense
 Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage
the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application
                  draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04

Abstract

   This experimental memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for
   managing Optical parameters associated with Wavelength Division
   Multiplexing (WDM) adding a set of parameters related to multicarrier
   DWDM interfaces to be used in Spectrum Switched Optical Networks
   (sson).

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018.







Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  DWDM line system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Multi carrier Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   This experimental extension addresses the use cases described by
   "draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk" to the Spectrum Switched
   Optical Network applications.  LMP [RFC4902] provides link property
   correlation capabilities that can be used between a transceiver
   device and an Optical Line System (OLS) device.  Link property
   correlation is a procedure by which, intrinsic parameters and
   capabilities are exchanged between two ends of a link.  Link property
   correlation as defined in RFC4204 allows either end of the link to
   supervise the received signal and operate within a commonly
   understood parameter window.  Here the term 'link' refers in
   particular to the attachment link between OXC and OLS (see Figure 1).
   The relevant novelty is the interface configuration having a multiple
   carrier where the client signal is spread on.  The parameters are not
   yet fully defined by ITU-, so this document can jast be seen as an
   experimental proposal not binding operators and vendors to comply and
   implement them



Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


2.  DWDM line system

   Figure 1 shows a set of reference points (Rs and Ss), for a single-
   channel connection between transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx)
   devices.  Here the DWDM network elements in between those devices
   include an Optical Multiplexer (OM) and an Optical Demultiplexer
   (OD).  In addition it may include one or more Optical Amplifiers (OA)
   and one or more Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers (OADM).


          +-------------------------------------------------+
       Ss |              DWDM Network Elements              | Rs
   +--+ | |  | \                                       / |  |  | +--+
   Tx L1--|->|   \    +------+            +------+   /   |--|-->Rx L1
   +---+  |  |    |   |      |  +------+  |      |  |    |  |    +--+
   +---+  |  | FX |   |      |  | FLEX |  |      |  | FX |  |    +--+
   Tx L2--|->| OM |-->|------|->|ROADM |--|------|->| OD |--|-->Rx L2
   +---+  |  |    |   |      |  |      |  |      |  |    |  |    +--+
   +---+  |  |    |   |      |  +------+  |      |  |    |  |    +--+
   Tx L3--|->|   /    | DWDM |    |  ^    | DWDM |   \   |--|-->Rx L3
   +---+  |  | /      | Link +----|--|----+ Link |     \ |  |    +--+
          +-----------+           |  |           +----------+
                               +--+  +--+
                               |        |
                            Rs v        | Ss
                            +-----+  +-----+
                            |RxLx |  |TxLx |
                            +-----+  +-----+

   Ss = Sender reference point at the DWDM network element
        tributary output, this can be a set of multiple transceivers
        carrying the same client payload.
   Rs = Receiver reference point at the DWDM network element
        tributary input this can be a set of multiple transceivers
        carrying the same client payload.

   FX OM = Flex-Spectrum Optical Mux
   FX OD = Flex-Spectrum Optical Demux
   Flex ROADM = Flex-Spectrum Optical Add Drop Mux (reconfigurable)

   extending Fig. 5.1/G.698.2

                 Figure 1: Linear Single Channel approach








Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   Figure 2 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] )


           +------+ Ss    +------+       +------+    Rs +------+
           |      | ----- |      |       |      | ----- |      |
           | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 |
           |      | ----- |      |       |      | ----- |      |
           +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
             ^  ^             ^              ^             ^  ^
             |  |             |              |             |  |
             |  +-----LMP-----+              +-----LMP-----+  |
             |                                                |
             +----------------------LMP-----------------------+

   OXC     : is an entity that contains Multiple carriers transponders
   OLS     : generic Flex-Spectrum optical system, it can be -
             Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add
             Drop Mux, Amplifier etc.
   OLS to OLS: represents the Optical Multiplex section
               <xref target="ITU.G709"/>
   Rs/Ss     : reference points in between the OXC and the OLS

                       Figure 2: Extended LMP Model

3.  Use Cases

   The set of paramentes exchanged between OXC and OLS is to support the
   Spectrum Switched Optical Network in therms of Number of Sub-carriers
   available at the transceiver and their characteristics to provide the
   SSON control plane all the information suitable to calculate the path
   and the optical feasibility

4.  Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol

   This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow a set of
   characteristic parameters, to be exchanged between a router or
   optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached.
   In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects
   to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and
   [RFC6205].  The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different
   Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and
   status of their peer.  These messages and their usage are defined in
   subsequent sections of this document.

     The following new messages are defined for the SSON extension
       - Multi carrier Transceiver   (sub-object Type = TBA)





Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


5.  Multi carrier Transceiver

   These are a set of general parameters extending the description in
   [G698.2] and [G.694.1].  ITU-T working groups are working to detail
   most of parameters and an update of the TLV may be required.

   Other than the Application Identifier described in [G698.2] and
   draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp the parameters to describe a
   multicarrier transceiver are describes as follows:

    1. Modulation format: indicates the Transceiver capabilities
       to support a single or multiple modulation format like:
       BPSK, DC-DP-BSPSK, QPSK, DP-QPSK, QAM16, DP-QAM16,
       DC-DP-QAM16, 64QAM.
    2. FEC: indicates the FEC types the transceiver can support
    3. baud rate: symbols rate, basically this identify the
       channel symbols number per second
    4. Num Carriers: number of (sub)carriers the trasceiver can support
       and can be "mapped" in a Mediachannel
    5. Bits/symbol: number of bit per simbol (aka spectral efficiency)
    6. Subcarrier band (minimum distance between subcarriers) in GHz
    7. Guard band (required guard band at the side of media channel)
    8. Sub-carrier TX Power: output optical power the transceiver can
       provide
    9. Sub-carrier RX Power: Input optical power Range the transceiver
       can support, this is known also as Sensitivity
   10  Max-pol-power-difference: max power difference between the
       polarised components
   11  Max-pol-skew-difference: maw Skew between polarised signal and
       subcarriers supported by the transceiver
   12. Sub-carrier OSNR robustness

   Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
   TBA) 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type       |    Length     |         (Reserved)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S|I|         Modulation ID     |               FEC             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         baud rate  (Symbol Rate)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Number of subcarriers    |            Bit/Symbol         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          subcarrier band      |           guard band          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   |                      sub-carrier TX power                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     sub-carrier RX power HIGH                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     sub-carrier RX power LOW                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Max-pol-power-difference                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Max-pol-skew-difference                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        sub-carrier OSNR                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     - S: standardized format;
     - I: input / output (1 / 0)
     - Modulation Format: is the modulation type:
           BPSK, DC DP BSPSK, QPSK, DP QPSK, 8QAM, 16QAM, 64QAM,
           Hybrid, etc.
            - <TBD> (ITU-T reference)
            - value > 32768 (first bit is 1): custom defined values
           Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
     - FEC: the signal Forward Error Corrections type (16-bit
           unsigned integer), the defined values are:
            - <TBD> (ITU-T reference)
            - 32768 (first bit is 1): custom defined values
           Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
     - Baud Rate: the signal symbol rate (IEEE 32-bit float,
           in bauds/s)
           Value 0 is reserved to be used if no value is defined
     - Num Carriers
     - Bits/symbol
     - Subcarrier band (minimum distance between subcarriers)
     - Guard band (required guard band at the side of media channel)
     - Sub-carrier Transmit Power
     - Sub-carrier Receive HIGH Power range (Sensitivity)
     - Sub-carrier Receive LOW Power range (Sensitivity)
     - Sub-carrier OSNR robustness
     - Max-pol-power-difference
     - Max-pol-skew-difference
     - Sub-carrier OSNR

                    Figure 3: Multi carrier Transceiver

6.  Security Considerations

   LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204].  This
   document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing




Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209].  This
   document does not introduce new security considerations.

7.  IANA Considerations

      LMP <xref target="RFC4204"/> defines the following name spaces and
      the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:

    -  LMP Message Type
    -  LMP Object Class
    -  LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
    -  LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
     This memo introduces the following new assignments:

      LMP Sub-Object Class names:

    under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in <xref target="RFC4204"/>)
      - Multi carrier Transceiver              (sub-object Type = TBA)




8.  Contributors


        Zafar Ali
           Cisco
           3000 Innovation Drive
           KANATA
           ONTARIO K2K 3E8
           zali@cisco.com</email>


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk]
              Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., Galimberti, G., and J.
              Meuric, "A framework for Management and Control of DWDM
              optical interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-
              mng-ctrl-fwk-07 (work in progress), September 2017.

   [ITU.G694.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
              for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.




Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   [ITU.G698.2]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
              multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
              applications with single channel optical interfaces",
              ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.

   [ITU.G709]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
              Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.709, February 2012.

   [ITU.G872]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
              optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
              October 2012.

   [ITU.G874.1]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
              network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
              model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.874.1, October 2012.

   [RFC4054]  Strand, J., Ed. and A. Chiu, Ed., "Impairments and Other
              Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4054, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4054>.

   [RFC4204]  Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4204>.

   [RFC4209]  Fredette, A., Ed. and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management
              Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
              (DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4209, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4209>.

   [RFC6205]  Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
              Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
              RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.




Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3410>.

   [RFC4181]  Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
              MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
              September 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4181>.

Authors' Addresses

   Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
   Juniper
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale - 94089 California
   USA

   Phone: +1408
   Email: dharinih@juniper.net


   Gert Grammel (editor)
   Juniper
   Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15
   80807 Muenchen
   Germany

   Phone: +49 1725186386
   Email: ggrammel@juniper.net


   Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
   Cisco
   Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
   20871 - Vimercate
   Italy

   Phone: +390392091462
   Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com











Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-04        March 2018


   Ruediger Kunze
   Deutsche Telekom
   Dddd, xx
   Berlin
   Germany

   Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
   Email: RKunze@telekom.de











































Hiremagalur, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/