< draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-15.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt >
	Network Working Group G. Bernstein		Network Working Group G. Bernstein
	Internet Draft Grotto Networking		Internet Draft Grotto Networking
	Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee		Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee
	Expires: August 2014 D. Li		Expires: August 2015 D. Li
	Huawei		Huawei
	W. Imajuku		W. Imajuku
	NTT		NTT
	August 7, 2014		November 4, 2014
	General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled		General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
	Networks		Networks
	draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-15.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
	the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38		skipping to change at page 1, line 38
	months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents		months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
	at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as		at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
	reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
	This Internet-Draft will expire on February 7, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
	respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this		respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
	document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in		document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
	Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without		Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
	skipping to change at page 2, line 41		skipping to change at page 2, line 41
	Conventions used in this document		Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction...................................................3		1. Introduction...................................................3
	1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints......................3		1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints......................4
	1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints....................4		1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints....................4
	2. Encoding.......................................................5		2. Encoding.......................................................5
	2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field.................................5		2.1. Connectivity Matrix Field.................................5
	2.2. Port Label Restriction Field..............................7		2.2. Port Label Restriction Field..............................7
	2.2.1. SIMPLE_LAB...........................................8		2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL.........................................8
	2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT........................................8		2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT........................................8
	2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE1.........................................9		2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE..........................................9
	2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.........................9		2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.........................9
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10		2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity..............................10
	2.3. Link Set Field...........................................10		2.3. Link Set Field...........................................10
	2.4. Available Labels Field...................................12		2.4. Available Labels Field...................................12
	2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................13		2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field...............................13
	2.6. Label Set Field..........................................13		2.6. Label Set Field..........................................14
	2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists.....................14		2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists.....................15
	2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................15		2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges....................16
	2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................16		2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set....................................17
	3. Security Considerations.......................................16		3. Security Considerations.......................................17
	4. IANA Considerations...........................................17		4. IANA Considerations...........................................18
	5. Acknowledgments...............................................17		5. Acknowledgments...............................................18
	APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................18		APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples....................................19
	A.1. Link Set Field...........................................18		A.1. Link Set Field...........................................19
	A.2. Label Set Field..........................................18		A.2. Label Set Field..........................................19
	A.3. Connectivity Matrix......................................19		A.3. Connectivity Matrix......................................20
	A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........22		A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry.........23
	A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels.........24		A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels.........25
	6. References....................................................26		6. References....................................................27
	6.1. Normative References.....................................26		6.1. Normative References.....................................27
	6.2. Informative References...................................26		6.2. Informative References...................................28
	7. Contributors..................................................28		7. Contributors..................................................29
	Authors' Addresses...............................................29		Authors' Addresses...............................................30
	Intellectual Property Statement..................................30		Intellectual Property Statement..................................31
	Disclaimer of Validity...........................................30		Disclaimer of Validity...........................................31
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS		Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS
	control plane contain additional constraints on switching capability		control plane contain additional constraints on switching capability
	and label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must		and label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies must
	perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the		perform non-local label assignment based on the nature of the
	technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON [WSON-		technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON
	Frame]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by		[RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by
	link label availability in path computation and label assignment.		link label availability in path computation and label assignment.
	This document provides efficient encodings of information needed by		This document provides efficient encodings of information needed by
	the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as		the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as
	WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of		WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of
	technologies. Such encodings can be used to extend GMPLS signaling		technologies. Such encodings can be used to extend GMPLS signaling
	and routing protocols. In addition these encodings could be used by		and routing protocols. In addition these encodings could be used by
	other mechanisms to convey this same information to a path		other mechanisms to convey this same information to a path
	computation element (PCE).		computation element (PCE).
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints		1.1. Node Switching Asymmetry Constraints
	For some network elements the ability of a signal or packet on a		For some network elements the ability of a signal or packet on a
	particular input port to reach a particular output port may be		particular input port to reach a particular output port may be
	limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity		limited. In addition, in some network elements the connectivity
	between some input ports and output ports may be fixed, e.g., a		between some input ports and output ports may be fixed, e.g., a
	simple multiplexer. To take into account such constraints during		simple multiplexer. To take into account such constraints during
	path computation we model this aspect of a network element via a		path computation we model this aspect of a network element via a
	connectivity matrix.		connectivity matrix.
	The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the		The connectivity matrix (ConnectivityMatrix) represents either the
	potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches or fixed		potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches or fixed
	connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer. Note		connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer. Note
	that this matrix does not represent any particular internal blocking		that this matrix does not represent any particular internal blocking
	behavior but indicates which input ports and labels (e.g.,		behavior but indicates which input ports and labels (e.g.,
	wavelengths) could possibly be connected to a particular output		wavelengths) could possibly be connected to a particular output port
	port. Representing internal state dependent blocking for a node is		and label pair. Representing internal state dependent blocking for a
	beyond the scope of this document and due to it's highly		node is beyond the scope of this document and due to it's highly
	implementation dependent nature would most likely not be subject to		implementation dependent nature would most likely not be subject to
	standardization in the future. The connectivity matrix is a		standardization in the future. The connectivity matrix is a
	conceptual M by N matrix representing the potential switched or		conceptual M*m by N*n matrix where M represents the number of input
	fixed connectivity, where M represents the number of input ports and		ports each with m labels and N the number of output ports each with
	N the number of output ports.		n labels.
	1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints		1.2. Non-Local Label Assignment Constraints
	If the nature of the equipment involved in a network results in a		If the nature of the equipment involved in a network results in a
	requirement for non-local label assignment we can have constraints		requirement for non-local label assignment we can have constraints
	based on limits imposed by the ports themselves and those that are		based on limits imposed by the ports themselves and those that are
	implied by the current label usage. Note that constraints such as		implied by the current label usage. Note that constraints such as
	these only become important when label assignment has a non-local		these only become important when label assignment has a non-local
	character. For example in MPLS an LSR may have a limited range of		character. For example in MPLS an LSR may have a limited range of
	labels available for use on an output port and a set of labels		labels available for use on an output port and a set of labels
	already in use on that port and hence unavailable for use. This		already in use on that port and hence unavailable for use. This
	information, however, does not need to be shared unless there is		information, however, does not need to be shared unless there is
	some limitation on the LSR's label swapping ability. For example if		some limitation on the LSR's label swapping ability. For example if
	a TDM node lacks the ability to perform time-slot interchange or a		a TDM node lacks the ability to perform time-slot interchange or a
	WSON lacks the ability to perform wavelength conversion then the		WSON lacks the ability to perform wavelength conversion then the
	label assignment process is not local to a single node and it may be		label assignment process is not local to a single node and it may be
	advantageous to share the label assignment constraint information		advantageous to share the label assignment constraint information
	for use in path computation.		for use in path computation.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014
	Port label restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label		Port label restrictions (PortLabelRestriction) model the label
	restrictions that the network element (node) and link may impose on		restrictions that the network element (node) and link may impose on
	a port. These restrictions tell us what labels may or may not be		a port. These restrictions tell us what labels may or may not be
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More		used on a link and are intended to be relatively static. More
	dynamic information is contained in the information on available		dynamic information is contained in the information on available
	labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port		labels. Port label restrictions are specified relative to the port
	in general or to a specific connectivity matrix for increased		in general or to a specific connectivity matrix for increased
	modeling flexibility. Reference [Switch] gives an example where both		modeling flexibility. Reference [Switch] gives an example where both
	switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of		switch and fixed connectivity matrices are used and both types of
	constraints occur on the same port.		constraints occur on the same port.
	2. Encoding		2. Encoding
	skipping to change at page 5, line 43		skipping to change at page 5, line 40
	The Connectivity Matrix Field represents how input ports are		The Connectivity Matrix Field represents how input ports are
	connected to output ports for network elements. The switch and fixed		connected to output ports for network elements. The switch and fixed
	connectivity matrices can be compactly represented in terms of a		connectivity matrices can be compactly represented in terms of a
	minimal list of input and output port set pairs that have mutual		minimal list of input and output port set pairs that have mutual
	connectivity. As described in [Switch] such a minimal list		connectivity. As described in [Switch] such a minimal list
	representation leads naturally to a graph representation for path		representation leads naturally to a graph representation for path
	computation purposes that involves the fewest additional nodes and		computation purposes that involves the fewest additional nodes and
	links.		links.
	A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is:		The Connectivity Matrix is uniquely identified only by the
			advertising node. There may be more than one matrix associated with
			a node as the node can partition the switch matrix into several sub-
			matrices for various reasons such as incremental updates, etc. When
			the matrix is partitioned into sub-matrices, it is envisioned that
			they are mutually exclusive to one another in representing which
			ports/labels are associated with each sub-matrix. This implies that
			two matrices will not have the same {sr port, src label, sdt port,
			dst label}.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
			A TLV encoding of this list of link set pairs is:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Connectivity | MatrixID | Reserved |		| Conn | MatrixID | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Set A #1 |		| Link Set A #1 |
	: : :		: : :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Set B #1 :		| Link Set B #1 :
	: : :		: : :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Additional Link set pairs as needed |		| Additional Link set pairs as needed |
	: to specify connectivity :		: to specify connectivity :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Where		Where
	Connectivity is the device type.		Connectivity (Conn) (4 bit) is the device type.
	0 -- the device is fixed		0 -- the device is fixed
	1 -- the device is switched(e.g., ROADM/OXC)		1 -- the device is switched(e.g., ROADM/OXC)
	MatrixID represents the ID of the connectivity matrix and is an 8		MatrixID represents the ID of the connectivity matrix and is an 8
	bit integer. The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port		bit integer. The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port
	wavelength constraints and should not be used to identify a		wavelength constraints and should not be used to identify a
	connectivity matrix.		connectivity matrix.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 5		skipping to change at page 7, line 5
	parameter "dir" for Link Set A and B pairs:		parameter "dir" for Link Set A and B pairs:
	o Link Set A dir=input, Link Set B dir=output		o Link Set A dir=input, Link Set B dir=output
	The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that		The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that
	any signal that inputs a link in set A can be potentially switched		any signal that inputs a link in set A can be potentially switched
	out of an output link in set B.		out of an output link in set B.
	o Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional		o Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B dir=bidirectional
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that		The meaning of the pair of link sets A and B in this case is that
	any signal that inputs on the links in set A can potentially		any signal that inputs on the links in set A can potentially
	output on a link in set B, and any input signal on the links in		output on a link in set B, and any input signal on the links in
	set B can potentially output on a link in set A.		set B can potentially output on a link in set A.
	See Appendix A for both types of encodings as applied to a ROADM		See Appendix A for both types of encodings as applied to a ROADM
	example.		example.
	2.2. Port Label Restriction Field		2.2. Port Label Restriction Field
	Port Label Restriction Field tells us what labels may or may not be		Port Label Restriction Field tells us what labels may or may not be
	used on a link.		used on a link.
	The port label restriction can be encoded as follows: More than one		The port label restriction can be encoded as follows: More than one
	of these fields may be needed to fully specify a complex port		of these fields may be needed to fully specify a complex port
	constraint. When more than one of these fields are present the		constraint. When more than one of these fields are present the
	resulting restriction is the intersection of the restrictions		resulting restriction is the union of the restrictions expressed in
	expressed in each field. To indicate that a restriction applies to		each field. To indicate that a restriction applies to the port in
	the port in general and not to a specific connectivity matrix use		general and not to a specific connectivity matrix use the reserved
	the reserved value of 0xFF for the MatrixID.		value of 0xFF for the MatrixID.
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID |RestrictionType| Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID |RestrictionType| Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType |		| Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictionType |
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Where:		Where:
	MatrixID: either is the value in the corresponding Connectivity		MatrixID: either is the value in the corresponding Connectivity
	Matrix field or takes the value OxFF to indicate the restriction		Matrix field or takes the value OxFF to indicate the restriction
	applies to the port regardless of any Connectivity Matrix.		applies to the port regardless of any Connectivity Matrix.
	RestrictionType can take the following values and meanings:		RestrictionType can take the following values and meanings:
	0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction)		0: SIMPLE_LABEL (Simple label selective restriction; See
			Section 2.2.1 for details)
	1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction)		1: CHANNEL_COUNT (Channel count restriction; See Section 2.2.2
			for details)
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label		2: LABEL_RANGE (Label range device with a movable center label
	and width)		and width; See Section 2.2.3 for details)
	3: SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT (Combination of SIMPLE_LABEL		3: SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT (Combination of SIMPLE_LABEL
	and CHANNEL_COUNT restriction. The accompanying label set and		and CHANNEL_COUNT restriction. The accompanying label set and
	channel count indicate labels permitted on the port and the		channel count indicate labels permitted on the port and the
	maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used on		maximum number of channels that can be simultaneously used on
	the port)		the port; See Section 2.2.4 for details)
	4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once		4: LINK_LABEL_EXCLUSIVITY (A label may be used at most once
	amongst a set of specified ports)		amongst a set of specified ports; See Section 2.2.5 for
			details)
	Switching Capability is defined in [RFC4203] and Encoding in		Switching Capability is defined in [RFC4203] and Encoding in
	[RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the type of		[RFC3471]. The combination of these fields defines the type of
	labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as well as the		labels used in specifying the port label restrictions as well as the
	interface type to which these restrictions apply.		interface type to which these restrictions apply.
			Additional Restriction Parameters per RestrictType field is an
			optional field that describes additional restriction parameters for
			each RestrictionType pertaining to specific protocols.
	2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL		2.2.1. SIMPLE_LABEL
	In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL the GeneralPortRestrictions (or		In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL, The format is given by:
	MatrixSpecificRestrictions) format is given by:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID | RstType = 0 | Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID | RstType = 0 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field |		| Label Set Field |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	In this case the accompanying label set indicates the labels		In this case the accompanying label set indicates the labels
	permitted on the port.		permitted on the port.
			See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set.
	2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT		2.2.2. CHANNEL_COUNT
	In the case of the CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given by:		In the case of the CHANNEL_COUNT, the format is given by:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID | RstType = 1 | Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID | RstType = 1 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MaxNumChannels |		| MaxNumChannels |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	In this case the accompanying MaxNumChannels indicates the maximum		In this case the accompanying MaxNumChannels indicates the maximum
	number of channels (labels) that can be simultaneously used on the		number of channels (labels) that can be simultaneously used on the
	port/matrix.		port/matrix.
	2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE		2.2.3. LABEL_RANGE
	In the case of the LABEL_RANGE the GeneralPortRestrictions (or		In the case of the LABEL_RANGE, the format is given by:
	MatrixSpecificRestrictions) format is given by:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID | RstType = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID | RstType = 2 |Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MaxLabelRange |		| MaxLabelRange |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field |		| Label Set Field |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	In this case the accompanying MaxLabelRange indicates the maximum		This is a generalization of the waveband device. The MaxLabelRange
	range of the labels. The corresponding label set is used to indicate		indicates the maximum width of the waveband in terms of the channels
	the overall label range. Specific center label information can be		spacing given in the Label Set Field. The corresponding label set is
	obtained from dynamic label in use information. It is assumed that		used to indicate the overall tuning range. See Section 2.6.2 for the
	both center label and range tuning can be done without causing		explanation of label range.
	faults to existing signals.
	2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT		2.2.4. SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT
	In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given		In the case of the SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT the format is given
	by:		by:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID | RstType = 3 | Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID | RstType = 3 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MaxNumChannels |		| MaxNumChannels |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field |		| Label Set Field |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate		In this case the accompanying label set and MaxNumChannels indicate
	labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that		labels permitted on the port and the maximum number of labels that
	can be simultaneously used on the port.		can be simultaneously used on the port.
			See Section 2.6 for the definition of label set.
	2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity		2.2.5. Link Label Exclusivity
	In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the format is given by:		In the case of the Link Label Exclusivity the format is given by:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| MatrixID | RstType = 4 | Switching Cap | Encoding |		| MatrixID | RstType = 4 | Switching Cap | Encoding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Set Field |		| Link Set Field |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	In this case the accompanying port set indicate that a label may be		In this case the accompanying link set indicates that a label may be
	used at most once among the ports in the link set field.		used at most once among the ports in the link set field. See Section
			2.3 for the definition of link set.
	2.3. Link Set Field		2.3. Link Set Field
	We will frequently need to describe properties of groups of links.		We will frequently need to describe properties of groups of links.
	To do so efficiently we can make use of a link set concept similar		To do so efficiently we can make use of a link set concept similar
	to the label set concept of [RFC3471]. This Link Set Field is used		to the label set concept of [RFC3471]. This Link Set Field is used
	in the <ConnectivityMatrix>, which is defined in Section 2.1. The		in the <ConnectivityMatrix>, which is defined in Section 2.1. The
	information carried in a Link Set is defined by:		information carried in a Link Set is defined by:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action |Dir| Format | Length |		| Action |Dir| Format | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Identifier 1 |		| Link Identifier 1 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	: : :		: : :
	skipping to change at page 11, line 32		skipping to change at page 11, line 32
	0 - Inclusive List		0 - Inclusive List
	Indicates that one or more link identifiers are included in the Link		Indicates that one or more link identifiers are included in the Link
	Set. Each identifies a separate link that is part of the set.		Set. Each identifies a separate link that is part of the set.
	1 - Inclusive Range		1 - Inclusive Range
	Indicates that the Link Set defines a range of links. It contains		Indicates that the Link Set defines a range of links. It contains
	two link identifiers. The first identifier indicates the start of		two link identifiers. The first identifier indicates the start of
	the range (inclusive). The second identifier indicates the end of		the range. The second identifier indicates the end of the range. All
	the range (inclusive). All links with numeric values between the		links with numeric values between the bounds are considered to be
	bounds are considered to be part of the set. A value of zero in		part of the set. A value of zero in either position indicates that
	either position indicates that there is no bound on the		there is no bound on the corresponding portion of the range. Note
	corresponding portion of the range. Note that the Action field can		that the Action field can be set to 0x01(Inclusive Range) only when
	be set to 0x01(Inclusive Range) only when unnumbered link identifier		unnumbered link identifier is used.
	is used.
	Dir: Directionality of the Link Set (2 bits)		Dir: Directionality of the Link Set (2 bits)
	0 -- bidirectional		0 -- bidirectional
	1 -- input		1 -- input
	2 -- output		2 -- output
	For example in optical networks we think in terms of unidirectional		For example in optical networks we think in terms of unidirectional
	as well as bidirectional links. For example, label restrictions or		as well as bidirectional links. For example, label restrictions or
	connectivity may be different for an input port, than for its		connectivity may be different for an input port, than for its
	"companion" output port if one exists. Note that "interfaces" such		"companion" output port if one exists. Note that "interfaces" such
			as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	as those discussed in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] are assumed to be
	bidirectional. This also applies to the links advertised in various		bidirectional. This also applies to the links advertised in various
	link state routing protocols.		link state routing protocols.
	Format: The format of the link identifier (6 bits)		Format: The format of the link identifier (6 bits)
	0 -- Link Local Identifier		0 -- Link Local Identifier
	Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by link		Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by link
	local identifiers. All link local identifiers are supplied in the		local identifiers. All link local identifiers are supplied in the
	context of the advertising node.		context of the advertising node.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 5		skipping to change at page 13, line 5
	local identifier of [RFC4202], GMPLS routing, [RFC4203] GMPLS OSPF		local identifier of [RFC4202], GMPLS routing, [RFC4203] GMPLS OSPF
	routing, and [RFC5307] IS-IS GMPLS routing. The use of the link		routing, and [RFC5307] IS-IS GMPLS routing. The use of the link
	local identifier format can result in more compact encodings when		local identifier format can result in more compact encodings when
	the assignments are done in a reasonable fashion.		the assignments are done in a reasonable fashion.
	2.4. Available Labels Field		2.4. Available Labels Field
	The Available Labels Field consists of priority flags, and a single		The Available Labels Field consists of priority flags, and a single
	variable length label set field as follows:		variable length label set field as follows:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| PRI | Reserved |		| PRI | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field |		| Label Set Field |
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Where		Where
	PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which		PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which
	priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order,		priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order,
	with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the		with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the
	highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e.,		highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e.,
	the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority		the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority
	represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the		represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the
	corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority		corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority
	level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,		level MUST be advertised.
	SHALL be at priority level 0.
			Note that the PRI flag identifies the priority of the LSP which is
			being set up.
	Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix		Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix
	A.5. for illustrative examples.		A.5. for illustrative examples.
	2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field		2.5. Shared Backup Labels Field
	The Shared Backup Labels Field consists of priority flags, and		The Shared Backup Labels Field consists of priority flags, and
	single variable length label set field as follows:		single variable length label set field as follows:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| PRI | Reserved |		| PRI | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field |		| Label Set Field |
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Where		Where
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which		PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which
	priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order,		priorities are being advertised. The bitmap is in ascending order,
	with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the		with the leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014
	highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e.,		highest) and the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e.,
	the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority		the lowest). A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority
	represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the		represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the
	corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority		corresponding priority is not represented. At least one priority
	level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,		level MUST be advertised.
	SHALL be at priority level 0.
			Note that the PRI flag identifies the priority of the backup LSP
			which is being set up.
	Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix		Note that Label Set Field is defined in Section 2.6. See Appendix
	A.5. for illustrative examples.		A.5. for illustrative examples.
	2.6. Label Set Field		2.6. Label Set Field
	Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> or the		Label Set Field is used within the <AvailableLabels> or the
	<SharedBackupLabels>, which is defined in Section 2.4. and 2.5.,		<SharedBackupLabels>, which is defined in Section 2.4. and 2.5.,
	respectively.		respectively.
	The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses		The general format for a label set is given below. This format uses
	the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to		the Action concept from [RFC3471] with an additional Action to
	define a "bit map" type of label set. Labels are variable in length.		define a "bit map" type of label set. Labels are variable in length.
	Action specific fields are defined below.		Action specific fields are defined below.
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action| Num Labels | Length |		| Action| Num Labels | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Base Label |		| Base Label |
	| . . . |		| . . . |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| (Action specific fields) |		| (Action specific fields) |
	| . . . . |		| . . . . |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Action:		Action:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014
	0 - Inclusive List		0 - Inclusive List
	1 - Exclusive List		1 - Exclusive List
	2 - Inclusive Range		2 - Inclusive Range
	3 - Exclusive Range		3 - Exclusive Range
	4 - Bitmap Set		4 - Bitmap Set
	Length is the length in bytes of the entire field.		Num Labels is generally the number of labels. It has a specific
			meaning depending on the action value. See Sections 2.6.1 - 2.6.3
			for details.
			Length is the length in bytes of the entire label set field.
	2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists		2.6.1. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Lists
	In the case of the inclusive/exclusive lists the wavelength set		In the case of the inclusive/exclusive lists the wavelength set
	format is given by:		format is given by:
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|0 or 1 | Num Labels | Length |		|0 or 1 | Num Labels | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label #1 |		| Label #1 |
	| . . . |		| . . . |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 16, line 5		skipping to change at page 16, line 33
	Label #1 is the first Label to be included/excluded and Label #N is		Label #1 is the first Label to be included/excluded and Label #N is
	the last Label to be included/excluded. Num Labels MUST match with		the last Label to be included/excluded. Num Labels MUST match with
	N.		N.
	2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges		2.6.2. Inclusive/Exclusive Label Ranges
	In the case of inclusive/exclusive ranges the label set format is		In the case of inclusive/exclusive ranges the label set format is
	given by:		given by:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|2 or 3 | Num Labels | Length |		|2 or 3 | Num Labels | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Start Label |		| Start Label |
	| . . . |		| . . . |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| End Label |		| End Label |
	| . . . |		| . . . |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Note that that Start Label is the first Label in the range to be		Note that that Start Label is the first Label in the range to be
	included/excluded and End Label is the last label in the same range.		included/excluded and End Label is the last label in the same range.
	Num Labels MUST be two.		Num Labels MUST be two.
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set		2.6.3. Bitmap Label Set
	In the case of Action = 4, the bitmap the label set format is given		In the case of Action = 4, the bitmap the label set format is given
	by:		by:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| 4 | Num Labels | Length |		| 4 | Num Labels | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 17, line 5		skipping to change at page 17, line 35
	| Bit Map Word #N (Highest numerical labels) |		| Bit Map Word #N (Highest numerical labels) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Where Num Labels in this case tells us the number of labels		Where Num Labels in this case tells us the number of labels
	represented by the bit map. Each bit in the bit map represents a		represented by the bit map. Each bit in the bit map represents a
	particular label with a value of 1/0 indicating whether the label is		particular label with a value of 1/0 indicating whether the label is
	in the set or not. Bit position zero represents the lowest label and		in the set or not. Bit position zero represents the lowest label and
	corresponds to the base label, while each succeeding bit position		corresponds to the base label, while each succeeding bit position
	represents the next label logically above the previous.		represents the next label logically above the previous.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014
	The size of the bit map is Num Label bits, but the bit map is padded		The size of the bit map is Num Label bits, but the bit map is padded
	out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the field is a multiple of		out to a full multiple of 32 bits so that the field is a multiple of
	four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e., those in		four bytes. Bits that do not represent labels (i.e., those in
	positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero and MUST be		positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero and MUST be
	ignored.		ignored.
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON		This document defines protocol-independent encodings for WSON
	information and does not introduce any security issues.		information and does not introduce any security issues.
	However, other documents that make use of these encodings within		However, other documents that make use of these encodings within
	protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated		protocol extensions need to consider the issues and risks associated
			Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
			2014
	with, inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of		with, inspection, interception, modification, or spoofing of any of
	this information. It is expected that any such documents will		this information. It is expected that any such documents will
	describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate		describe the necessary security measures to provide adequate
	protection. A general discussion on security in GMPLS networks can		protection. A general discussion on security in GMPLS networks can
	be found in [RFC5920].		be found in [RFC5920].
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This document provides general protocol independent information		This document provides general protocol independent information
	encodings. There is no IANA allocation request for the information		encodings. There is no IANA allocation request for the information
	elements defined in this document. IANA allocation requests will be		elements defined in this document. IANA allocation requests will be
	addressed in protocol specific documents based on the encodings		addressed in protocol specific documents based on the encodings
	defined here.		defined here.
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.		This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples		APPENDIX A: Encoding Examples
	Here we give examples of the general encoding extensions applied to		Here we give examples of the general encoding extensions applied to
	some simple ROADM network elements and links.		some simple ROADM network elements and links.
	A.1. Link Set Field		A.1. Link Set Field
	Suppose that we wish to describe a set of input ports that are have		Suppose that we wish to describe a set of input ports that are have
	skipping to change at page 18, line 49		skipping to change at page 19, line 49
	--------------------------------------------------		--------------------------------------------------
	192.0 -11 0		192.0 -11 0
	192.5 -6 5		192.5 -6 5
	193.1 0 11		193.1 0 11
	193.9 8 19		193.9 8 19
	194.0 9 20		194.0 9 20
	195.2 21 32		195.2 21 32
	195.8 27 38		195.8 27 38
	Using the label format defined in [RFC6205], with the Grid value set		Using the label format defined in [RFC6205], with the Grid value set
	to indicate an ITU-T G.694.1 DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate 100GHz		to indicate an ITU-T A/2 [G.694.1] DWDM grid, C.S. set to indicate
	this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows:		100GHz this lambda bit map set would then be encoded as follows:
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| 4 | Num Labels = 40 | Length = 16 bytes |		| 4 | Num Labels = 40 | Length = 16 bytes |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|		|1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Not used in 40 Channel system (all zeros) |		|1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Not used in 40 Channel system (all zeros) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	To encode this same set as an inclusive list we would have:		To encode this same set as an inclusive list we would have:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| 0 | Num Labels = 7 | Length = 20 bytes |		| 0 | Num Labels = 7 | Length = 16 bytes |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -11 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -6 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -6 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -0 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = -0 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 8 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 8 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 9 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 9 |
	skipping to change at page 20, line 5		skipping to change at page 21, line 5
	|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 |		|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n for lowest frequency = 27 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	A.3. Connectivity Matrix		A.3. Connectivity Matrix
	Example:		Example:
	Suppose we have a typical 2-degree 40 channel ROADM. In addition to		Suppose we have a typical 2-degree 40 channel ROADM. In addition to
	its two line side ports it has 80 add and 80 drop ports. The picture		its two line side ports it has 80 add and 80 drop ports. The picture
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	below illustrates how a typical 2-degree ROADM system that works		below illustrates how a typical 2-degree ROADM system that works
	with bi-directional fiber pairs is a highly asymmetrical system		with bi-directional fiber pairs is a highly asymmetrical system
	composed of two unidirectional ROADM subsystems.		composed of two unidirectional ROADM subsystems.
	(Tributary) Ports #3-#42		(Tributary) Ports #3-#42
	Input added to Output dropped from		Input added to Output dropped from
	West Line Output East Line Input		West Line Output East Line Input
	vvvvv ^^^^^		vvvvv ^^^^^
	skipping to change at page 20, line 48		skipping to change at page 21, line 48
	West Line Input East Line Output		West Line Input East Line Output
	Referring to the figure we see that the Input direction of ports #3-		Referring to the figure we see that the Input direction of ports #3-
	#42 (add ports) can only connect to the output on port #1. While the		#42 (add ports) can only connect to the output on port #1. While the
	Input side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the output on		Input side of port #2 (line side) can only connect to the output on
	ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the output on port #1 (pass through).		ports #3-#42 (drop) and to the output on port #1 (pass through).
	Similarly, the input direction of ports #43-#82 can only connect to		Similarly, the input direction of ports #43-#82 can only connect to
	the output on port #2 (line). While the input direction of port #1		the output on port #2 (line). While the input direction of port #1
	can only connect to the output on ports #43-#82 (drop) or port #2		can only connect to the output on ports #43-#82 (drop) or port #2
	(pass through). We can now represent this potential connectivity		(pass through). We can now represent this potential connectivity
	matrix as follows. This representation uses only 30 32-bit words.		matrix as follows. This representation uses only 29 32-bit words.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |		| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Note: adds to line		Note: adds to line
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |		| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
	skipping to change at page 22, line 5		skipping to change at page 23, line 5
	| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |		| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier = #1 |		| Link Local Identifier = #1 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Note: adds to line		Note: adds to line
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |		| Action=1 |0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier = #43 |		| Link Local Identifier = #43 |
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier = #82 |		| Link Local Identifier = #82 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |		| Action=0 |1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier = #2 |		| Link Local Identifier = #2 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Note: line to drops		Note: line to drops
	skipping to change at page 23, line 5		skipping to change at page 24, line 5
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry		A.4. Connectivity Matrix with Bi-directional Symmetry
	If one has the ability to renumber the ports of the previous example		If one has the ability to renumber the ports of the previous example
	as shown in the next figure then we can take advantage of the bi-		as shown in the next figure then we can take advantage of the bi-
	directional symmetry and use bi-directional encoding of the		directional symmetry and use bi-directional encoding of the
	connectivity matrix. Note that we set dir=bidirectional in the link		connectivity matrix. Note that we set dir=bidirectional in the link
	set fields.		set fields.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	(Tributary)		(Tributary)
	Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82		Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82
	West Line Output East Line Input		West Line Output East Line Input
	vvvvv ^^^^^		vvvvv ^^^^^
	| |||.| | |||.|		| |||.| | |||.|
	+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+		+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
	| +----------------------+ |		| +----------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	skipping to change at page 23, line 32		skipping to change at page 24, line 32
	(West Line Side) | |(East Line Side)		(West Line Side) | |(East Line Side)
	-----------------+ +----------------------+ +--------------		-----------------+ +----------------------+ +--------------
	>=====================| |===================>		>=====================| |===================>
	-----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +--------------		-----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +--------------
	Input | | | | Output		Input | | | | Output
	| | _ | |		| | _ | |
	| +----------------------+ |		| +----------------------+ |
	+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+		+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+
	| |||.| | |||.|		| |||.| | |||.|
	vvvvv ^^^^^		vvvvv ^^^^^
	Ports #3-42 Ports #43-82		Ports #3-#42 Ports #43-82
	Output dropped from Input added to		Output dropped from Input added to
	West Line Input East Line Output		West Line Input East Line Output
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |		| Conn = 1 | MatrixID | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Add/Drops #3-42 to Line side #1		Add/Drops #3-42 to Line side #1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Action=1 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |		| Action=1 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 12 |
	skipping to change at page 25, line 5		skipping to change at page 26, line 5
	| Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |		| Action=0 |0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0| Length = 8 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier = #2 |		| Link Local Identifier = #2 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels		A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels
	If one wants to make a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field		If one wants to make a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field
	#1) available only for the highest priority level (Priority Level 0)		#1) available only for the highest priority level (Priority Level 0)
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2)		while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2)
	available to all priority levels, the following encoding will		available to all priority levels, the following encoding will
	express such need.		express such need.
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved |		|1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field #1 |		| Label Set Field #1 |
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0| Reserved |		|1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label Set Field #2 |		| Label Set Field #2 |
	: :		: :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group		[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
	skipping to change at page 26, line 37		skipping to change at page 28, line 5
	Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005		Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005
	[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions		[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
	in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching		in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.		(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
	[RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for		[RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
	Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC		Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC
	6205, March 2011.		6205, March 2011.
	6.2. Informative References		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, Spectral grids for WDM
	applications: DWDM frequency grid, June 2002.
	[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, Spectral grids for WDM
	applications: CWDM wavelength grid, December 2003.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February
	2014		2014
			6.2. Informative References
	[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions		[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
	in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching		in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.		(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
	[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path		[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
	Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) -		Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) -
	Version 1", RFC5440.		Version 1", RFC5440.
	[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS		[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
	Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.		Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
			[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and
			Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength
			Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, April 2011.
	[Switch] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, A. Gavler, J. Martensson, " Modeling		[Switch] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, A. Gavler, J. Martensson, " Modeling
	WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and		WDM Wavelength Switching Systems for Use in GMPLS and
	Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical		Automated Path Computation", Journal of Optical
	Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp.		Communications and Networking, vol. 1, June, 2009, pp.
	187-195.		187-195.
	[RWA-Info] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and		[RWA-Info] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
	Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength		Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
	Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-		Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
	ccamp-rwa-info.		ccamp-rwa-info.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	7. Contributors		7. Contributors
	Diego Caviglia		Diego Caviglia
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153		Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
	Genoa Italy		Genoa Italy
	Phone: +39 010 600 3736		Phone: +39 010 600 3736
	skipping to change at page 29, line 5		skipping to change at page 30, line 5
	Email: rrao@infinera.com		Email: rrao@infinera.com
	Giovanni Martinelli		Giovanni Martinelli
	CISCO		CISCO
	Email: giomarti@cisco.com		Email: giomarti@cisco.com
	Remi Theillaud		Remi Theillaud
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	Marben		Marben
	remi.theillaud@marben-products.com		remi.theillaud@marben-products.com
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Greg M. Bernstein (ed.)		Greg M. Bernstein (ed.)
	Grotto Networking		Grotto Networking
	Fremont California, USA		Fremont California, USA
	skipping to change at page 30, line 5		skipping to change at page 31, line 5
	Email: danli@huawei.com		Email: danli@huawei.com
	Wataru Imajuku		Wataru Imajuku
	NTT Network Innovation Labs		NTT Network Innovation Labs
	1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa		1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
	Japan		Japan
	Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315		Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
	Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp		Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	Jianrui Han		Jianrui Han
	Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.		Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
	F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,		F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
	Bantian, Longgang District		Bantian, Longgang District
	Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China		Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
	Phone: +86-755-28972916		Phone: +86-755-28972916
	Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com		Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com
	skipping to change at page 31, line 5		skipping to change at page 32, line 5
	All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are		All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
	provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION		provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
	HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,		HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
	THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL		THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
	WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY		WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
	WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE		WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
	ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS		ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
	FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding February		Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding November
	2014		2014
	Acknowledgment		Acknowledgment
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the		Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
	Internet Society.		Internet Society.
End of changes. 79 change blocks.
	129 lines changed or deleted		157 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/

X-Generator: pyht 0.35