OSPF-TE Extensions for WSON-specific Network Element Constraints
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-02
Problems faced with current drafts
Currently RWA model defines “Resource Block” (group of n OEOs)
 same devices features
 same accessibility constraints
(ref to draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info)
RB is the only aggregation granularity inside the model => each piece of
information each time refers to newly defined RB Sets
as a consequence:
 => Duplicated information
 => Lacks logical organization inside Optical Node LSAs
We propose two modifications to improve the solution in
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
2 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Modification 1 - Changing structure of
Optical Node Property LSA
Structure from draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
<Optical Node Property LSA> ::= <ResourcePool>
<ResourcePool> ::= <RBInfo>... [<RBAccessibility>...]
[<ResourceWvlConstraints>...] [<SharedAccessWvls>...]
[<ResourcePoolState>]
Proposed structure
<Optical Node Property LSA> ::= <ResourceGroup>...
<ResourceGroup> ::= <RGroupID> (<RBInfo> [<RBState>])... [<RGAccessibility>]
[<RGWvlConstraints>] [<SharedAccessWvls>]
With simplifications of
e.g.:<SharedAccessWvls> ::= <RBSet> [<SharedIngressWvl>]
[<SharedEgressWvl>]
Implementation dependant a node may advertize multiple
<Optical Node Property LSA>, each one containing a single <ResourceGroup>
3 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Modification 2 - Way of advertizing connectivity constraints
<RBSet> : A Set of RB IDs
<LinkSet> : A Set of Link IDs (WDM links)
<IngressMixedSet> : A Set containing Links IDs and RG IDs
Functioning of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
 <Node Attribute> ::= <ConnectivityMatrix>...
<ConnectivityMatrix> ::= (<IngressLinkSet> <EgressLinkSet>)...
 <Optical Node Property> ::= <X>... <Y>... <RBAccessibility>...
<RBAccessibility> ::= <PoolIngressMatrix> <PoolEgressMatrix>
<Pool_____Matrix> ::= (<LinkSet> <RBSet>)...
Proposal: Advertizing MixedSet of Links and RGroups
 <Node Attribute> ::= <ConnectivityMatrix>...
<ConnectivityMatrix> ::= (<IngressMixedSet> <EgressMixedSet>)...
Consequently a ResourceGroup (modification 1) becomes:
<ResourceGroup> ::= <RGroupID> (<RBInfo> [<RBState>])... [<RGAccessibility>]
[<RGWvlConstraints>] [<SharedAccessWvls>]
4 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Illustration of our proposition:
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info (24 elements ID – info spread over two LSAs):
Node attribute LSA containing ConnectivityMatrix that indicates:
- (Entering interfaces A and C)
to (outgoing interfaces X and Z)
- (Entering interfaces B, D and E) to (outgoing interfaces X, Y and K)
Node property LSA containing ResourceAccessibility that indicates:
- It is possible to interconnect:
- (RG1)
to
(entering interfaces A and C)
- (RG1)
to
(outgoing interfaces X and Z)
- (RG2)
to
(entering interfaces B, D and E)
- (RG2)
to
(outgoing interfaces X, Y and K)
Our proposal (14 elements ID – info gathered):
Node attribute LSA containing ConnectivityMatrix that indicates:
- (Entering A, C and RG1)
to
(outgoing X, Z and RG1)
- (Entering B, D, E and RG2)
to
(outgoing X,Y, K and RG2)
5 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Conclusion
Presented:
 Proposed a new info modeling of WSON Nodes
Introducing Resource Groups
 Proposed the grouping of connectivity constraints
Everything inside Node Attribute LSA
Question to WG:
 Accept these modifications?
6 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Questions, discussions
and directions?
th
7
7|
| OSPF-TE
OSPF-TE extensions
extensions for
for WSON
WSON |
| IETF
IETF 80
79th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Item 1 - Layout of an Optical Node Property LSA
Below draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info layout
<Optical Node Property LSA> ::= [<ResourcePool>]
<RBSet> : A Set of RB IDs
<LinkSet> : A Set of Link IDs (WDM links)
<ResourcePool> ::= <RBInfo>... [<RBAccessibility>...] [<ResourceWvlConstraints>...]
[<SharedAccessWvls>...] [<ResourcePoolState>]
<RBInfo> ::= <RBSet> <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities>
<OutputConstraints>
<_____Constraints> ::= <ModulationTypes> [<BitRates>] <FECTypes> [<ClientTypes>]
<ProcessingCapabilities> ::= number of devices in the RBlock + specific capabilities
Means that each time you have a “group” of same devices of different size you have
to define a new <RBInfo> then expanding this list
<RBAccessibility> ::= <PoolIngressMatrix> <PoolEgressMatrix>
<Pool_____Matrix> ::= (<LinkSet> <RBSet>)...
Duplicated RBSets
<ResourceWvlConstraints> ::= <RBSet> [<IngressWvlCnstrts>]
[<EgressWvlCnstrts>]
<SharedAccessWvls> ::= <RBSet> [<SharedIngressWvl>] [<SharedEgressWvl>]
<ResourcePoolState> ::= <RBSet> <RBUsage> (number of OEO devices used per RB)
8 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Proposition 1.A: Creating a ResourceGroup entity Group of RBs sharing same accessibility constraints
<Optical Node Property LSA> ::= [<ResourceGroup>...]
<LinkSet> : A Set of Link IDs (WDM links)
<ResourceGroup> ::= <RGroupID> (<RBInfo> <RBState>)... [<RGAccessibility>]
[<RGWvlConstraints>] [<SharedAccessWvls>]
<RBInfo> ::= <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities> <OutputConstraints>
<_____Constraints> ::= <ModulationTypes> [<BitRates>] <FECTypes> [<ClientTypes>]
<ProcessingCapabilities> ::= number of devices in the RBlock + specific capabilities
<RBState> ::= number of devices used
<RGAccessibility> ::= <IngressLinkSets> <EgressLinkSets>
<RGWvlConstraints> ::= <IngressWvlCnstrts> <EgressWvlCnstrts>
<SharedAccessWvls> ::= <SharedIngressWvl> <SharedEgressWvl>
Implementation dependant a node may advertize multiple <Optical Node
Property LSA>, each one containing a single <ResourceGroup>
9 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
TLVs:
ConnectivityMatrix vs ResourcePoolAccessibility
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Connectivity |
MatrixID
|
Reserved
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Ingress Link Set A #1
|
:
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
EgressLink Set B #1
:
:
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Additional Link set pairs as needed
|
:
to specify connectivity
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
10 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
TLVs:
ConnectivityMatrix vs ResourcePoolAccessibility
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Connectivity |
Reserved
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Ingress Link Set Field A #1
|
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
RB Set Field A #1
|
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Additional Link set and RB set pairs as needed to
|
:
specify PoolIngressMatrix
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Egress Link Set Field B #1
|
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
RB Set B Field #1 (for egress connectivity)
|
:
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Additional Link Set and RB set pairs as needed to
|
:
specify PoolEgressMatrix
:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
11 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Technical context –
What needs to be advertised about WSON nodes
B
D
Egress ports
C
A
Ingress ports
A
C
D
Connectivity matrix depicts
OEO resources
constraints between ingress and
egress ports
OEO resources depicted by:
OEO : Optic-Electronic-Optic (HW devices)
achieve wavelength conversion and signal
regeneration
12 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
Accessibility constraints with ingress
and egress ports
OEO devices features (bit-rate, etc…)
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Importance of OEO pools
C
D
B
RB1: 5x10Gbit/s
RB2: 7x40Gbit/s
RB3: 3x43Gbit/s
RB4: 11x10Gbit/s
OEO resources
RB5: 5x40Gbit/s
RB6: 3x43Gbit/s
RB7: 9x10Gbit/s
RB8: 1x43Gbit/s
Egress ports
A
Ingress ports
Currently RWA model defines “Resource Block” (group of n OEOs)
 same accessibility constraints
 same features
(ref to draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info)
A
C
D
New element of model:
Resource pool (group of m
RBlocks) with same accessibility
constraints
Requirement: Provide model support for OEO pools which are logical
entities inside WSON nodes – used by operation teams
13 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Fully flexible Y-node with 1 pool of O-E-O
From node A
To node A
From node B
To node B
From node C
To node C
drop
add
Tun.
Drop
…
Tun.
Drop
…
OEO pool
With higher degree nodes (e.g. connectivity = 8):
Multiple pools are really likely to appear (depends on adddrop traffic)
14 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Fully flexible Y node with 4 pools of O-E-O fixed to links
To node A
From node A
To node B
From node B
To node C
From node C
Tun.
Drop
Tun.
Drop
Tun.
Drop
OEO pool 1
OEO pool 2
OEO pool 3
OEO pool 4
15 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Documents context
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-07
(gone through last-call)
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-04
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-00
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11
Scope: OEO equipments and their usage in RWA
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signalcompatibility-ospf-04
16 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-02
Back in Beijing - Alternative solutions
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
From IETF 79th
Chairs concluded last meeting by :
 Are all requirements well considered?
 Are divergences coming from OSPF drafts or higher in draft-tree?
Since then, a collective decision:
 Connectivity matrix inside
-> Node Attribute top-level TLV
 OEO related TLVs inside
-> new top-level TLV: Node Property
Afterwards, further discussions on:
 The structure of Node Property top-level TLV, with following issues:
Misunderstanding on “pools”
Misunderstanding on separation between generic and wson-specific
17 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02
Proposition 1.B: Creating a ResourceGroup entity Group of RBs sharing same accessibility constraints
<Optical Node Property LSA> ::= [<ResourcePool>]
<RBSet> : A Set of RB IDs
<LinkSet> : A Set of Link IDs (WDM links)
<ResourcePool> ::= <ResourceGroup>... <RBInfo>... <ResourcePoolState>
<ResourceGroup> ::= <RGroupID> <RBSet> <RGAccessibility>
<RGWvlConstraints> <SharedAccessWvls>
<RGAccessibility> ::= <IngressLinkSets> <EgressLinkSets>
<RGWvlConstraints> ::= <IngressWvlCnstrts> <EgressWvlCnstrts>
<SharedAccessWvls> ::= <SharedIngressWvl> <SharedEgressWvl>
<RBInfo> ::= <RBSet> <InputConstraints> <ProcessingCapabilities>
<OutputConstraints>
<_____Constraints> ::= <ModulationTypes> [<BitRates>] <FECTypes> [<ClientTypes>]
<ProcessingCapabilities> ::= number of devices in the RBlock + specific capabilities
<ResourcePoolState> ::= <RBSet> <RBUsage> (number of OEO devices used per RB)
18 | OSPF-TE extensions for WSON | IETF 80th
draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-opsf-oeo-02