1 / 12

Guard Bands requirements for GMPLS controlled optical networks

draft-cbcs-ccamp-sson-guard-bands-reqs-00 CCAMP WG, IETF 83 rd Paris. Guard Bands requirements for GMPLS controlled optical networks. Agenda. Goal and Definitions Scenarios and Requirements PCE – PCEP Routing Signaling Open Issues Next steps. Goal and Definitions.

parkerveronica
Télécharger la présentation

Guard Bands requirements for GMPLS controlled optical networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-cbcs-ccamp-sson-guard-bands-reqs-00 CCAMP WG, IETF 83rd Paris Guard Bands requirements for GMPLS controlled optical networks

  2. Agenda • Goal and Definitions • Scenarios and Requirements • PCE – PCEP • Routing • Signaling • Open Issues • Next steps

  3. Goal and Definitions • Goal: What is it addressing? "The draft gathers requirements for CP protocols to take into account Guard Bands when doing RSA • Guard Band: is defined as the minimum frequency range which separates two contiguous signals, S1 at bit rate B1 and modulation format M1 and S2 at a bit rate B2 and modulation format M2, such that detrimental effects are negligible. Example of parameters impacting the GB: • Bit rate and modulation format of interfering signals • Power values of signals at each span • Fiber parameters (e.g. attenuation, dispersion, Kerr coefficient)

  4. Scenarios & Requirements • IV and RSA PCE : the PCE provides the ingress node with an impairment-validated route and a set of frequency slots. • Stateful PCE: LSP-DB extended with info needed for GB computation (e.g. bit rate, mod format) • Stateless PCE: TED extended with info needed for GB computation and hence routing protocol • OSPF-TE extended for stateless PCE TED feeding • IV PCE: PCE provides ingress node with an impairment-validated route. Then, slot assignment is distributed • PCE needs to inform the ingress node about GBs for the route, PCEP Path Computation Reply extended accordingly • RSVP-TE extensions needed to identify the frequency spectrum along the path that should not be selected because of GB • IV Candidate path PCE: PCE provides ingress node with a set of candidate routes (i.e., a set of impairment-validated routes). Then, a route is selected by the ingress node. • PCE needs to inform the ingress node about GBs for the set of validated routes, PCEP Path Computation Reply extended accordingly • RSVP-TE extensions needed to identify the frequency spectrum along the path that should not be selected because of GB

  5. Open Issues • ITU-T Q6/15 have not addressed guard bands in latest G.694.1 recommendation • Parameters for Guard Bands computation are not known yet (and may remain implementation dependent?) • Too early for encoding design • Guard bands implicit or explicit?

  6. Next steps • Liaison needed? • Need to ask Q6/15 what the plans for Guard Bands are? • It would be helpful the design SSON encoding so to be extensible for Guard Bands support • WG feedbacks collection

  7. GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in support of Flexible-Grid in DWDM Networks CCAMP WG, IETF 83rd, Paris, France draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt Fatai Zhang (zhangfatai@huawei.com) Xian Zhang (zhang.xian@huawei.com) Ramon Casellas (ramon.casellas@cttc.es) O. Gonzalez de Dios (ogondio@tid.es) D. Ceccarelli (daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com)

  8. Changes from version 00 Described various kinds of Labels Set Inclusive/Exclusive Label Range Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists Bitmap Added port label restriction information

  9. Labels Set sub-TLV 193.1 THz ... … -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DWDM link 6.25 GHz Available Frequency Inclusive Label Lists: Label 1 = 193.1 + (-2)*0.00625 Label 2 = 193.1 + (-1)*0.00625 Label 3 = 193.1 Label 4 = 193.1 + (1)*0.00625 … Label 10 = 193.1 + (7)*0.00625 Label 11 = 193.1 + (8)*0.00625 Inclusive Range : Start Label = 193.1 + (-2)*0.00625, End Label = 193.1 + (8)*0.00625 Bitmap: Base Label = 193.1 + (-1)*0.00625 Bitmap = (padded out to a full multiple of 32 bits)

  10. Port Label Constraints 193.1 THz ... … -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 DWDM link Central frequency granularity = 12.5 GHz Slot width granularity = 25 GHz • The following parameters should be advertised (Port Label Restriction sub-TLV) • Central frequency granularity • Slot width granularity • Slot width range • G.694.1 says: • Applications may be defined where only a subset of the possible slot widths and positions are required to be supported. An example as follows:

  11. Discussion Should slot width (or ‘m’) be advertised for the link resource(available spectrum)? Slot width is only significant for a frequency slot (ie., a specific connection), There is no pre-defined fixed “wavelength” (i.e. slot width is not given before a frequency slot is allocated) therefore, no need to advertise slot width (or ‘m’) What to do with unreserved bandwidth per prio, MAX LSP bw per prio in the ISCD?

  12. Next Steps Comments? Refine it according to the feedback from the meeting or mailing list Keeping alignment with ITU-T progress

More Related