RFC 7449
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment
Pages: 12
Informational
Informational
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 AssignmentAbstract
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.
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
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
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.
(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.
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.
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.
(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:
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.
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>.
[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
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