1 / 8

Greg M. Bernstein (ed.), Grotto Young Lee (ed.), Huawei Dan Li, Huawei Wataru Imajuku , NTT

Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks Switched Optical Networks draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-14.txt. Greg M. Bernstein (ed.), Grotto Young Lee (ed.), Huawei Dan Li, Huawei Wataru Imajuku , NTT Diego Caviglia Ericsson

rufus
Télécharger la présentation

Greg M. Bernstein (ed.), Grotto Young Lee (ed.), Huawei Dan Li, Huawei Wataru Imajuku , NTT

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. Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks Switched Optical Networks draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-14.txt Greg M. Bernstein (ed.), Grotto Young Lee (ed.), Huawei Dan Li, Huawei WataruImajuku, NTT Diego Caviglia Ericsson Anders Gavler, Acreo Jonas Martensson, Acreo ItaruNishioka, NEC Cyril Magaria, NSN

  2. Updates from v.13 to v.14 • Added an editorial comment on Section 7.1 (Dynamic Link Information) • Clarified that this information model does not dictate placement of information elements in protocols. In particular, added a caveat that the available label information element may be placed within the ISCD information element in the case of OSPF. “Note that the above does not dictate a particular encoding or placement for available label information. In some routing protocols it may be advantageous or required to place this information within another information element such as the interface switching capability descriptor (ISCD). Consult routing protocol specific extensions for details of placement of information elements.” • Generic Encoding Draft addresses the placement of ISCD (Next).

  3. Summary and Next Step • All pending issues have been resolved for this draft. • Make ready for WG LC.

  4. General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-07.txt Greg M. Bernstein (ed.), Grotto Young Lee (ed.), Huawei Dan Li, Huawei WataruImajuku, NTT Diego Caviglia Ericsson Anders Gavler, Acreo Jonas Martensson, Acreo ItaruNishioka, NEC Rajan Rao, Infenera

  5. Updates from v.6 to v.7 Added priority information in the Available Labels Sub-TLV (Section 2.3) The Available Labels sub-TLV link consists of an availability flag, priority flags, and a single variable length label set field as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A| Reserved | Priority Flags| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label Set Field | : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in the following label set field are available or not available, Priority Flags: Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15 corresponds to priority level 7. If a bit is set then the labels in the label set field are available or not available as indicated by the A bit for use at that particular priority level.

  6. Updates from v.6 to v.7 Added priority information to Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV (Section 2.4) The Available Labels sub-TLV link consists of an availability flag, priority flags, and a single variable length label set field as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A| Reserved | Priority Flags| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label Set Field | : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in the following label set field are available or not available, Priority Flags: Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15 corresponds to priority level 7. If a bit is set then the labels in the label set field are available or not available as indicated by the A bit for use at that particular priority level.

  7. Pending Issues How to bind generic label notion to Switching Capability Option 1: Use ISCD. By putting  ‘Available Labels sub-TLVs’  into SCSI. Option 2: Extend  ‘Available Labels sub-TLVs’ by adding an information that indicates Switching Capability

  8. Summary and Next Step Resolve all the pending issues and be ready for WG LC.

More Related