Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 7449

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment

Pages: 12
Informational

Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       Y. Lee, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7449                                        Huawei
Category: Informational                                G. Bernstein, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                        Grotto Networking
                                                           J. Martensson
                                                                   Acreo
                                                               T. Takeda
                                                                     NTT
                                                            T. Tsuritani
                                                                    KDDI
                                                     O. Gonzalez de Dios
                                                              Telefonica
                                                           February 2015


  Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements
             for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON)
                   Routing and Wavelength Assignment

Abstract

This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a Routing and Wavelength Assignment (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 light path computation. Requirements for PCEP extensions in support of optical impairments will be addressed in a separate document. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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) 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 ....................................................3 2. WSON RWA Processes and Architecture .............................4 3. Requirements ....................................................5 3.1. Path Computation Type Option ...............................5 3.2. RWA Processing .............................................6 3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply ................................6 3.4. RWA Path Reoptimization Request/Reply ......................7 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint ................................7 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference ...........................7 3.7. Signal-Processing Capability Restriction ...................8 4. Manageability Considerations ....................................8 4.1. Control of Function and Policy .............................8 4.2. Information and Data Models (e.g., MIB Module) .............9 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring ..........................9 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation ................................9 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components ..9 4.6. Impact on Network Operation ................................9 5. Security Considerations .........................................9 6. References .....................................................10 6.1. Normative References ......................................10 6.2. Informative References ....................................10 Acknowledgments....................................................11 Authors' Addresses.................................................11
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 3

1. Introduction

[RFC4655] defines the PCE-based architecture and explains how a Path Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks controlled by Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is shown to be any network component that makes such a request and may be, for instance, an optical switching element within a Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE itself can be located anywhere within the network; it may be within an optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS), or an Operational Support System (OSS), or it may be an independent network server. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol used between a PCC and PCE; it may also be used between cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred to separate documents. This document provides a set of application-specific PCEP requirements for support of path computation in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). WSON refers to WDM-based optical networks in which switching is performed selectively based on the wavelength of an optical signal. The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may span multiple fiber links, and the path should be assigned a wavelength for each link. A transparent optical network is made up of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one wavelength to another. In a transparent optical network, a lightpath operates on the same wavelength across all fiber links that it traverses. In such cases, the lightpath is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common fiber link cannot be assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise would result in both signals interfering with each other. Note that advanced additional multiplexing techniques such as polarization-based multiplexing are not addressed in this document since the physical-layer aspects are not currently standardized. Therefore, assigning the proper wavelength on a lightpath 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 lightpath may use different wavelengths on different links along its path from origin to destination. It is, however, to be noted
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 4
   that wavelength converters may be limited for cost reasons, 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 lightpath computations.

   In this document, we first review the processes for Routing and
   Wavelength Assignment (RWA) used when wavelength continuity
   constraints are present and then specify requirements for PCEP to
   support RWA.  Requirements for optical impairments will be addressed
   in a separate document.

   The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. WSON RWA Processes and Architecture

In [RFC6163], three alternative process architectures were given for performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown schematically in Figure 1, where R stands for Routing, WA for Wavelength Assignment, and DWA for Distributed Wavelength Assignment. +-------------------+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | | R | |WA| | | R |--->|WA| | R |--->|DWA| | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes | Process | WA performed in a +-------------------+ distributed manner (a) (b) (b') Figure 1: RWA Process Alternatives These alternatives have the following properties and impact on PCEP requirements in this document. (a) Combined Process (R&WA) Path selection and wavelength assignment are performed as a single process. The requirements for PCC-PCE interaction with a PCE implementing such a combined RWA process are addressed in this document.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 5
   (b)  Routing Separate from Wavelength Assignment (R+WA)

        The routing process furnishes one or more potential paths to the
        wavelength assignment process that then performs final path
        selection and wavelength assignment.  The requirements for PCE-
        PCE interaction with one PCE implementing the routing process
        and another implementing the wavelength assignment process are
        not addressed in this document.

   (b') Routing and Distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA)

        A standard path computation (unaware of detailed wavelength
        availability) takes place, and then wavelength assignment is
        performed along this path in a distributed manner via signaling
        (RSVP-TE).  This alternative is a particular case of R+WA and
        should be covered by GMPLS PCEP extensions; it does not present
        new WSON-specific requirements.

   The various process architectures for implementing RWA have been
   reviewed above.  Figure 2 shows one typical 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 from which the requirements are specified in this
   document.

                          +----------------------------+
            +-----+       |     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |     |Routing|     |WA|     |
            | PCC |<----->|     +-------+     +--+     |
            |     |       |                            |
            +-----+       |             PCE            |
                          +----------------------------+

              Figure 2: Combined Process (R&WA) Architecture

3. Requirements

The requirements for the PCC-to-PCE interface of Figure 2 are specified in this section.

3.1. Path Computation Type Option

A PCEP request MAY include the path computation type. This can be: (a) Both RWA, or (b) Routing only.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 6
   This requirement is needed to differentiate between the currently
   supported routing with distributed wavelength assignment option and
   combined RWA.  For the distributed wavelength assignment option,
   wavelength assignment will be performed at each node of the route.

3.2. RWA Processing

As discussed in Section 2, various RWA processing options should be supported in a PCEP request/reply. (a) When the request is an RWA path computation type, the request MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At minimum, the following options should be supported: (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC3473] (ii) A set of recommended labels for each hop. The PCC can select the label based on local policy. Note that option (ii) may also be used in R+WA or R+DWA. (b) In case of an RWA computation type, the response MUST include the wavelength(s) assigned to the path and an indication of which label assignment option has been applied (ELC or label set). (c) In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected, wavelength not found, both, etc.). Note that 'wavelength not found' may include several sub-cases such as wavelength continuity not met, unsupported FEC/Modulation type, etc.

3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply

Sending simultaneous path requests for "routing only" computation is supported by the PCEP specification [RFC5440]. To remain consistent, the following requirements are added. (a) A PCEP request MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA path requests. A bulk path request provides an ability to request a number of simultaneous RWA path requests. (b) The PCEP response MUST include the path and the assigned wavelength for each RWA path request specified in the original bulk request.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 7

3.4. RWA Path Reoptimization Request/Reply

This section provides a number of requirements concerning RWA path reoptimization processing in PCEP. (a) For a reoptimization request, the request MUST provide both the path and current wavelength to be reoptimized and MAY include the following options: (i) Reoptimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s) (ii) Reoptimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path (iii) Reoptimize allowing both the wavelength and the path to change (b) The corresponding response to the reoptimized request MUST provide the reoptimized path and wavelengths even when the request asked for the path or the wavelength to remain unchanged. (c) In the case that the new path is not found, the response MUST include why the path is not found (e.g., network disconnected, wavelength not found, both, etc.). Note that 'wavelength not found' may include several sub-cases such as wavelength continuity not met, unsupported FEC/Modulation type, etc.

3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint

For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MUST be allowed to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelength for explicit labels or label sets. This restriction may, for example, come from the tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or a policy-based restriction. Note that the requester (e.g., PCC) is not required to furnish any range restrictions.

3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference

In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g., sparse 3R regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a single, continuous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to specify the precedence of wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 8
   (a)  An RWA computation type request MAY include the requester
        preference for random assignment, descending order, ascending
        order, etc.  A response SHOULD follow the requester preference
        unless it conflicts with the operator's policy.

   (b)  A request for two or more paths MUST allow the requester to
        include an option constraining the paths to have the same
        wavelength(s) assigned.  This is useful in the case of
        protection with a single transponder (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint
        paths).

3.7. Signal-Processing Capability Restriction

Signal-processing compatibility is an important constraint for optical path computation. The signal type for an end-to-end optical path must match at the source and at the destination. The PCC MUST be allowed to specify the signal type at the endpoints (i.e., at the source and at the destination). The following signal- processing capabilities should be supported at a minimum: o Modulation Type List o FEC Type List The PCC MUST also be allowed to state whether transit modification is acceptable for the above signal-processing capabilities.

4. Manageability Considerations

Manageability of WSON RWA with PCE must address the following considerations.

4.1. Control of Function and Policy

In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring 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 configuring the following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 9
   o  The support for WSON RWA.

   o  The maximum number of bulk path requests associated with WSON RWA
      per request message.

   These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP
   session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a specific
   session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of sessions with a
   specific group of PCEP peers.

4.2. Information and Data Models

As this document only concerns the requirements to support WSON RWA, no additional MIB module is defined in this document. However, the corresponding solution document will list the information that should be added to the PCE MIB module defined in [RFC7420].

4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring

This document does not define any new mechanisms that imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in Section 8.3 of [RFC5440].

4.4. Verifying Correct Operation

This document does not define any new mechanisms that imply any new verification requirements in addition to those already listed in Section 8.4 of [RFC5440]

4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

If PCE discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) were to be extended for technology-specific capabilities, advertising WSON RWA path computation capability should be considered.

4.6. Impact on Network Operation

This document does not define any new mechanisms that imply any new network operation requirements in addition to those already listed in Section 8.6 of [RFC5440].

5. Security Considerations

This document has no requirement for a change to the security models within PCEP [RFC5440]. However, the additional information distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. Consideration should be given to securing this information.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 10
   Solutions that address the requirements in this document need to
   verify that existing PCEP security mechanisms adequately protect the
   additional network capabilities and must include new mechanisms as
   necessary.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>. [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 11
   [RFC7420]  Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
              Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
              7420, December 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Cycil Margaria, and Ramon Casellas for many helpful comments that greatly improved the content of this document.

Authors' Addresses

Young Lee (editor) Huawei Technologies 5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3 Plano, TX 75245 United States Phone: (469) 277-5838 EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com Greg Bernstein (editor) Grotto Networking Fremont, CA United States Phone: (510) 573-2237 EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com Jonas Martensson Acreo Isafjordsgatan 22 164 40 Kista Sweden EMail: Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se
Top   ToC   RFC7449 - Page 12
   Tomonori Takeda
   NTT Corporation
   3-9-11, Midori-Cho
   Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
   Japan

   EMail: tomonori.takeda@ntt.com


   Takehiro Tsuritani
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Saitama, 356-8502
   Japan

   Phone: +81-49-278-7806
   EMail: tsuri@kddilabs.jp


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica
   Distrito Telefonica, ed. Sur 3, Pta 3, Ronda de la Comunicacion
   Madrid, 28050
   Spain

   Phone: +34 913129647
   EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com