1 / 8

Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN)

draft-bccg-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-03 CCAMP WG, IETF 79 th Beijing. Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN). Agenda. Changes from version 01 to 03 Signaling basic requirements Distinction between terminating and switching capability

tyrell
Télécharger la présentation

Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN)

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-bccg-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-03 CCAMP WG, IETF 79th Beijing Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Network (OTN)

  2. Agenda • Changes from version 01 to 03 • Signaling basic requirements • Distinction between terminating and switching capability • Termination and switching capability application • Next steps

  3. Changes from version .01 to .03 • [OTN-FRW] provides a list of requirements both for signaling and routing • Version 01 provided information needed to match routing requirements only. • Version 02 added an overview of signaling requirements present in the [OTN-FWK] and completed the picture by also adding information needed to satisfy these requirements. • Version 03 adds the distinction between terminating and switching capability

  4. Signaling -basic requirements • Support for LSP setup of new ODUk/ODUflex containers • New label format needed to solve scalability problem; e.g. ODUflex into ODU4 could require up to 80 labels with RFC 4328 • Support for LSP setup using different Tributary Slot granularity (1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps) • TS type is one of the parameters needed to correctly configure the physical interface • The desired/required TS granularity has to be signaled, as per description in [HIER-BIS], to allow automatic FA setup in the case that the FA has to be setup in a mixed TS granularity scenario • Support for Tributary Port Number (TPN) allocation and negotiation • As the CP may be responsible for the association between the TPN and TS, RSVP-TE needs to be extended to support the TPN assignment • Bit rate and tolerance • ODUflex(CBR) and ODUflex(GFP) require upgrading signaling traffic parameters in order to be able to specify the requested bit rate and tolerance during LSP setup

  5. Distinction betweenterminating and switching capability Matrix Line interface • The interface can either: • adapt into the OTU-3 an ODU-3 coming from the matrix • multiplex an ODU-2 signal coming from matrix over an ODU-3 • ISCD declares: • ODU-3 (T=1, S=1) • ODU-2 (T=0, S=1) • (T=1) means that the line interface is able to terminate the signal • It can be used to understand that a LO signal may be muxed in the ODU-3 on the line interface. • (S=1) indicates that the interface is able to adapt a signal switched in matrix. ODU-2 ODU-2 ODU-3 ODU-3 OTU-3

  6. ODU1 LSP ODU2 LSP ODU2 LSP-r ODU2 LSP-g Terminating and switchingcapabilityapplication The scope of termination and switching information is to give the possibility to engineer his proper network ODU-2 (T=1, S=0) ODU-1 (T=0, S=1) OTU1 OTU2 OTU3 OTU2 Z C D A B OTU3 OTU3 ODU-3 (T=1, S=0) ODU-2 (T=0, S=1) ODU-1 (T=0, S=1) OTU3 OTU3 E F G OTU3 • When restoration action starts , node B needs to have the capability to calculate restoring ODU2 LSP able to terminate ODU2 to extract directly ODU1 service on node Z and send it to matrix. • Green LSP is carried on D-Z link that terminate ODU2 so allowing to switch ODU1. • Red LSP uses G-Z link terminating ODU3 and switching ODU2  no ODU1 access • The information related to termination or only switchable capacity permits to choose the right alternative

  7. Multi-stage multiplexing considerations • Multi-stage multiplexing placeholder is already present in [OTN-FWK] and [OTN-INFO] version 1 but not yet progressed in the latest updates • Various aspects require further investigation, e.g.: • Clarification is needed about the role of intermediate stages :are they “mapping” stages or “networkable entities” ? This fact has an impact on both routing and signaling protocols. • No LSP needed for intermediate stages if only “mapping” (i.e., fixed multiplexing relationships in NE) • If only mapping stage no needs for complete advertisement (no need for priority and BW advertisement -no switching capability) • Consideration of ITU-T liaison proposing “transitional link” as possible architectural construct that can be used to model multi-stage multiplexing • Need to understand CP implications related to transitional link concept • Assessment with respect to IETF tools is needed (e.g. ISCD/IACD) • Format proposal based on assuming unconstrained equipment multiplexing capabilities are present throughout the network is inappropriate • Dictates equipment fucntionality/implementation – not intention of G.709, G.872, or G.798 • Network jitter and wander performance implications unknown - jitter and wander performance has only been evaluated by ITU-T Q13/15 for up to three ODU levels with two ODU multiplexing stages in a network

  8. Next steps • To become WG draft • Refining the draft based on feedback and possible further requirement coming from G.709 and related work • New draft after the meeting

More Related