< 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: June 2015 D. Li | |||
Huawei | Huawei | |||
W. Imajuku | W. Imajuku | |||
NTT | NTT | |||
August 7, 2014 | December 2, 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 June 2, 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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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...................................27 | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | ||||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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. | |||
1 -- Local Interface IPv4 Address | 1 -- Local Interface IPv4 Address | |||
2 -- Local Interface IPv6 Address | 2 -- Local Interface IPv6 Address | |||
Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by Local | Indicates that the links in the Link Set are identified by Local | |||
Interface IP Address. All Local Interface IP Address are supplied in | Interface IP Address. | |||
the context of the advertising node. | ||||
Others -- Reserved for future use. | Others -- Reserved for future use. | |||
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same | Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same | |||
type. | type. | |||
Length: 16 bits | Length: 16 bits | |||
This field indicates the total length in bytes of the Link Set field. | This field indicates the total length in bytes of the Link Set field. | |||
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 December | |||
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. If a label is available | |||
level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy, | at priority M it MUST be available at each priority N < M. At least | |||
SHALL be at priority level 0. | one priority level MUST be advertised. | |||
The PRI field indicates the availability of the labels for use in | ||||
LSP set up and pre-emption as described in [RFC3209]. | ||||
When a label is marked by an LSP of priority M and available, an LSP | ||||
of priority N (N<=M) can use it only when it is not already in use. | ||||
When a label was initially advertised as available for priorities, | ||||
0, 1,...,M and once a label is used for an LSP at a priority, say N | ||||
(N<=M), then this label is advertised as available for 0,...,N-1. | ||||
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: | |||
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December | ||||
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 | |||
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. If a label is available | |||
level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy, | at priority M it MUST be available at each priority N < M. At least | |||
SHALL be at priority level 0. | one priority level MUST be advertised. | |||
The same LSP set up and pre-emption rules specified in Section 2.5 | ||||
apply here. | ||||
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. | |||
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December | ||||
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| 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 December | ||||
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 December | ||||
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 December | ||||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 31 | skipping to change at page 21, line 31 | |||
-----------------+ | | +-------------- | -----------------+ | | +-------------- | |||
<=====================| |===================< | <=====================| |===================< | |||
-----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | -----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | |||
| | | | | | |||
Port #1 | | Port #2 | Port #1 | | Port #2 | |||
(West Line Side) | |(East Line Side) | (West Line Side) | |(East Line Side) | |||
-----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | -----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | |||
>=====================| |===================> | >=====================| |===================> | |||
-----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +-------------- | -----------------+ | Unidirectional ROADM | +-------------- | |||
Input | | | | Output | Input | | | | Output | |||
| | _ | | | | | | | | |||
| +----------------------+ | | | +----------------------+ | | |||
+-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ | +-----| |||.|--------| |||.|------+ | |||
| |||.| | |||.| | | |||.| | |||.| | |||
vvvvv ^^^^^ | vvvvv ^^^^^ | |||
(Tributary) Ports #43-#82 | (Tributary) 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 | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 27 | skipping to change at page 24, line 27 | |||
-----------------+ | | +-------------- | -----------------+ | | +-------------- | |||
<=====================| |===================< | <=====================| |===================< | |||
-----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | -----------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------- | |||
| | | | | | |||
Port #1 | | Port #2 | Port #1 | | Port #2 | |||
(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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 | |||
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. | MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. | |||
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et al. "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | ||||
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. | ||||
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | |||
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, | (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, | |||
January 2003. | January 2003. | |||
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM | [G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM | |||
applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002. | applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002. | |||
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing | [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing | |||
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label | Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label | |||
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 | Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 | |||
skipping to change at page 26, line 39 | skipping to change at page 27, line 42 | |||
[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 | 6.2. Informative References | |||
[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 | ||||
[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. | |||
Internet-Draft General Network Element Constraint Encoding December | ||||
2014 | ||||
[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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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 December | |||
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. 83 change blocks. | ||||
135 lines changed or deleted | 174 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/ |