Subject: Re: [CCAMP] How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node in RSVP-TE?

From: Giovanni Martinelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:18:18 +0200

Hi Greg,

is this info required for any kind of RWA?

Cheers
G

Greg Bernstein wrote:
> Hi folks, we are continuing to investigate the generalization of the 
> WSON work to include regenerators, OEOs and the like.
> We have a question to how to best indicate via RSVP-TE that a 
> particular processing operation such as regeneration is to take place at
> a particular node along the path.
>
> Previous GMPLS work supports the signaling of wavelength conversion at 
> a particular node along the path since the Explicit Route Object (ERO) 
> supports a label sub-object and one can use a fixed mapping such as 
> [Otani] between labels and wavelengths.
>
> If we want to specify other types of processing at a particular node 
> along the path should we define new ERO sub-objects?
> Another approach seems to be that of RFC5420 concerning LSP 
> attributes. In particular RFC5420 states:
> 10.2. Communicating to Key Transit LSRs
> Processing for key transit LSRs (such as ABRs and ASBRs) follows
> exactly as for egress LSR. The only difference is that the
> definition of the LSP attribute in the defining RFC will state that
> the attribute must be acted on by these transit LSRs.
> Now to use this, it seems that we'd need to include the IP address of 
> the node we want to perform the processing in the TLV, which seems 
> kind of redundant with what we already have in the ERO...
>
> Comments, questions, other alternatives?
>
> Cheers
>
> Greg B.
>

---

From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:42:04 -0500

Hi Greg,

Since Regeneration requires termination of the E-M wave which inherently will cause destruction of CI in order to get at the AI*, regeneration is a multi-layer interaction.  I would suggest that the EROs would have the ports associated with the server-to-client layer transition in them (on both the ingress to the regenerator and the egress from the regenerator) to indicate invocation of a regenerator. 

Jonathan Sadler

* One such CI characteristic of the E-M wave that is lost is photon state.  This is e.g. why regeneration cannot be performed in the middle of a path used for passing cryptographic information in a quantum-key encryption system.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:03 PM
To: CCAMP
Subject: [CCAMP] How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node in RSVP-TE?

Hi folks,  we are continuing to investigate the generalization of the 
WSON work to include regenerators, OEOs and the like.
We have a question to how to best indicate via RSVP-TE that a particular 
processing operation such as regeneration is to take place at
a particular node along the path.

Previous GMPLS work supports the signaling of wavelength conversion at a 
particular node along the path since the Explicit Route Object (ERO) 
supports a label sub-object and one can use a fixed mapping such as 
[Otani] between labels and wavelengths.

If we want to specify other types of processing at a particular node 
along the path should we define new ERO sub-objects?
Another approach seems to be that of RFC5420 concerning LSP attributes. 
In particular RFC5420 states:
                   10.2. Communicating to Key Transit LSRs
                   Processing for key transit LSRs (such as ABRs and 
ASBRs) follows
                   exactly as for egress LSR.  The only difference is 
that the
                   definition of the LSP attribute in the defining RFC 
will state that
                   the attribute must be acted on by these transit LSRs.
Now to use this, it seems that we'd need to include the IP address of 
the node we want to perform the processing in the TLV, which seems kind 
of redundant  with what we already have in the ERO...

Cheers

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:43:00 -0700

Hi Giovanni, this information is not needed for the type of RWA for the 
WSONs covered in the RWA Framework, RWA Info, or RWA encoding working 
group drafts.
It is needed in some network situations covered in the "WSON 
compatibility" individual draft and the "WSON Impairments" working group 
draft.

We'll be updating the "WSON compatibility" draft next week to be 
explicit as to exactly what extensions are needed in a particular 
networking context.
This should have no impact on moving the Framework, Info, and Encoding 
drafts towards last call.

Cheers

Greg

Giovanni Martinelli wrote:
>> Previous GMPLS work supports the signaling of wavelength conversion 
>> at a particular node along the path since the Explicit Route Object 
>> (ERO) supports a label sub-object and one can use a fixed mapping 
>> such as [Otani] between labels and wavelengths.
>>

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:46:50 -0700

CI? AI? Is the quantum state of a photon preserved though an optical 
amplifier? Maybe we need a separate draft on quantum communications and 
encryption and GMPLS.

Greg

---

From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:23:23 +0800

Hi, Greg and Jonathan,

I think the possible approaches mentioned by Greg are simple and useful to resolve the issues. 
It will make things complex if we use EROs to indicate the ports association between server and client layer, because how to regenerate the signals is the local matter of the node.

Fatai

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:40:08 -0400

CI=Characteristic Information, AI=Adapted Information

Can't help with quantum state and optical amplifiers, though.

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:47 AM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node
inRSVP-TE?

Greg

Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Since Regeneration requires termination of the E-M wave which
inherently will cause destruction of CI in order to get at the AI*,
regeneration is a multi-layer interaction.  I would suggest that the
EROs would have the ports associated with the server-to-client layer
transition in them (on both the ingress to the regenerator and the
egress from the regenerator) to indicate invocation of a regenerator. 
>
> Jonathan Sadler
>
> * One such CI characteristic of the E-M wave that is lost is photon
state.  This is e.g. why regeneration cannot be performed in the middle
of a path used for passing cryptographic information in a quantum-key
encryption system.
> We have a question to how to best indicate via RSVP-TE that a
particular 
> Previous GMPLS work supports the signaling of wavelength conversion at
a 
> Another approach seems to be that of RFC5420 concerning LSP
attributes. 

> the node we want to perform the processing in the TLV, which seems
kind

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:44:01 -0500

Hi CCAMPers, 

We have updated WSON Signal Compatibility draft:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility-01.txt

We presented the 00 version in the 75th IETF at Stockholm. As the WG chairs
suggested, we have separated "Signal Compatibility" from WSON RWA work.
Forward below is an I-D announcement. Appreciate your comment and
suggestion. Thanks.

Greg and Young
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A new version of I-D, draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility-01.txt has
been successfuly submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility
Revision:	 01
Title:		 WSON Signal Characteristics and Network Element
Compatibility Constraints for GMPLS
Creation_date:	 2009-10-07
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 21

Abstract:
While the current GMPLS WSON framework can deal with many types of
wavelength switching systems there is a desire to extend the control plane
to networks that include a combination of transparent optical and hybrid
electro optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators, and wavelength
converters. Such networks are frequently referred to as translucent optical
networks in the literature. Some of the systems use in such networks can be
limited to processing WSON signals with specific characteristics or
attributes. In addition, some of the network elements may be able to perform
important optional processing functions such as regeneration on a signal and
would need to be provisioned as part of optical path establishment.

This document provides a WSON signal definition and attributes
characterization based on ITU-T interface and signal class standards and
describes the signal compatibility constraints of this extended set of
network elements. The signal characterization, network element compatibility
constraints and enhanced provisioning support enable GMPLS routing and
signaling to control these devices and PCE to compute optical light-paths
subject to signal compatibility attributes.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Greg Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:43 AM
To: Giovanni Martinelli
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node
inRSVP-TE?

Cheers

Greg

---

From: George Newsome <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:43:11 -0400

Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Greg and Jonathan,
> 
> I think the possible approaches mentioned by Greg are simple and
> useful to resolve the issues. It will make things complex if we use
> EROs to indicate the ports association between server and client
> layer, because how to regenerate the signals is the local matter of
> the node.
>
Hi Greg, Fatai,

The regen situation is the same as or slightly different from the 
wavelength conversion problem depending on your assumptions.

If you assume that the optical part of your network ONLY carries ODU's, 
then you can treat an ODU regenerator as if it is just another sublayer 
of an ODU. This is more or less the same as treating the wavelength as a 
sublayer of an OCh. However, if you want to allow for several different 
digital clients on the optical network, then you MUST make clear which 
layer provides the regenerator, and the simple sublayer model will not 
work. (You cannot apply an SDH or Ethernet signal to an ODU regen).

I think this is a case of the more you can assume, the less you need to 
pass around. Or, corollary, the more variation, the more you need to 
tell other participants.

So how regeneration is provided is NOT a local matter, but whether you 
need to signal it depends on the amount of variation in digital clients 
that you are trying to support.

I think that allowing for more variation and having a parameter too many 
is preferable to making a wrong assumption and having a parameter too few.

Regards,

	George

> Fatai
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bernstein"
> <[email-masked]> To: "Sadler, Jonathan B."
> <[email-masked]> Cc: "CCAMP" <[email-masked]> Sent:
> Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [CCAMP] How to
> Specify Regeneration at a particular node inRSVP-TE?
> 
> 
>> CI? AI? Is the quantum state of a photon preserved though an
>> optical amplifier? Maybe we need a separate draft on quantum
>> communications and encryption and GMPLS.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>>> inherently will cause destruction of CI in order to get at the
>>> AI*, regeneration is a multi-layer interaction.  I would suggest
>>> that the EROs would have the ports associated with the
>>> server-to-client layer transition in them (on both the ingress to
>>> the regenerator and the egress from the regenerator) to indicate
>>> invocation of a regenerator.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan Sadler
>>> 
>>> * One such CI characteristic of the E-M wave that is lost is
>>> photon state.  This is e.g. why regeneration cannot be performed
>>> in the middle of a path used for passing cryptographic
>>> information in a quantum-key encryption system.
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: [email-masked]
>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein Sent:
>>> Monday, September 14, 2009 12:03 PM To: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP]
>>> How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node in RSVP-TE?
>>> 
>>> Hi folks,  we are continuing to investigate the generalization of
>>> the WSON work to include regenerators, OEOs and the like. We have
>>> a question to how to best indicate via RSVP-TE that a particular
>>>  processing operation such as regeneration is to take place at a
>>> particular node along the path.
>>> 
>>> Previous GMPLS work supports the signaling of wavelength
>>> conversion at a particular node along the path since the Explicit
>>> Route Object (ERO) supports a label sub-object and one can use a
>>> fixed mapping such as [Otani] between labels and wavelengths.
>>> 
>>> If we want to specify other types of processing at a particular
>>> node along the path should we define new ERO sub-objects? Another
>>> approach seems to be that of RFC5420 concerning LSP attributes. 
>>> In particular RFC5420 states: 10.2. Communicating to Key Transit
>>> LSRs Processing for key transit LSRs (such as ABRs and ASBRs)
>>> follows exactly as for egress LSR.  The only difference is that
>>> the definition of the LSP attribute in the defining RFC will
>>> state that the attribute must be acted on by these transit LSRs. 
>>> Now to use this, it seems that we'd need to include the IP
>>> address of the node we want to perform the processing in the TLV,
>>> which seems kind of redundant  with what we already have in the
>>> ERO...
>>> 
>> -- =================================================== Dr Greg
>> Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Giovanni Martinelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:15:32 +0200

Hi Greg,

Greg Bernstein wrote:
> Hi Giovanni, this information is not needed for the type of RWA for
> the WSONs covered in the RWA Framework, RWA Info, or RWA encoding
> working group drafts.
This means that RWA cannot take into account wavelength conversion (so
the model just cover the case where every node can convert wavelengths),
right?

> compatibility" individual draft and the "WSON Impairments" working
> group draft.
>
yep seen, much clearer... will forward specific comments on that draft

Ciao
G

>>> Now to use this, it seems that we'd need to include the IP address
>>> of the node we want to perform the processing in the TLV, which
>>> seems kind of redundant with what we already have in the ERO...
>>>

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:49:10 -0700

Hi George, you hit the nail on the head :-)   In the revised "WSON 
compatibility" draft 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility-01.txt> 
we categorized various network situations (as you say, based on 
assumptions about equipment types and capabilities) then looked at the 
implications for path computation, routing and signaling. Only in 
certain cases would signaling need to be extended. More information 
maybe needed by path computation (via routing or otherwise) as you point 
out below.

Cheers

Greg

George Newsome wrote:
> If you assume that the optical part of your network ONLY carries 
> ODU's, then you can treat an ODU regenerator as if it is just another 
> sublayer of an ODU. This is more or less the same as treating the 
> wavelength as a sublayer of an OCh. However, if you want to allow for 
> several different digital clients on the optical network, then you 
> MUST make clear which layer provides the regenerator, and the simple 
> sublayer model will not work. (You cannot apply an SDH or Ethernet 
> signal to an ODU regen).
>
> I think this is a case of the more you can assume, the less you need 
> to pass around. Or, corollary, the more variation, the more you need 
> to tell other participants.
>
> need to signal it depends on the amount of variation in digital 
> clients that you are trying to support.
>
> I think that allowing for more variation and having a parameter too 
> many is preferable to making a wrong assumption and having a parameter 
> too few.
>
> Regards,
>
>     George
>
>> Fatai
>>
>>>> approach seems to be that of RFC5420 concerning LSP attributes. In 
>>>> particular RFC5420 states: 10.2. Communicating to Key Transit

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:01:22 -0700

Hi Giovanni, the existing RWA (no impairments) drafts don't know about 
regenerators, i.e., don't model them, but that doesn't mean they are not 
there.
We just assume that the network has been set up in a way such that the 
signals are "compatible" with the network elements and hence don't need 
to explicitly include them in the path computation model. While to take 
advantage of a OEO wavelength converter we do need to know where it is 
and its properties. GMPLS signaling can allow us to control the 
conversion process.

This is similar to the fact that there may be lots of optical amplifiers 
(1R regenerators) that we don't know about for control plane purposes. 
However, for some types of signals (those cool quantum cryto things that 
Jonathan likes) optical amplifiers may be a problem. However its more 2R 
and 3R compatibility issues that we are addressing in 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility-01.txt.

Cheers

Greg

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:40:51 -0400

Greg,
	I think we need a wider discussion on where regen (and to some degree
conversion) fits into the WSON model being progressed by the WG.  (nor
on that in a separate mail)  I think this is in line with some of there
other comments on this thread.

WRT the specific point of encoding: Assuming we agree on function, don't
forget about the reserved bits in the label ERO subobject and perhaps
even in the Otani label itself...

Lou

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:09:35 -0500

Hi Lou,

To address the issue of signal processing/compatibility and network element
compatibility to multiple signals for Regenerators, OEO and Wavelength
converters, we recently updated the following draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-compatibility-01.txt

We have separated this work from RWA and Impairment because this deserves a
special attention. This draft addresses where regeneration and other
translucent networks fit into the WSON model. Hope this will generate more
attention and discussion in the WG. 

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Greg Bernstein
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] How to Specify Regeneration at a particular node
inRSVP-TE?

Greg,
	I think we need a wider discussion on where regen (and to some
degree
conversion) fits into the WSON model being progressed by the WG.  (nor
on that in a separate mail)  I think this is in line with some of there
other comments on this thread.

Lou