[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                     J. Meuric, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              E. Le Rouzic
Updates: RFC7689 (if approved)                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                              L. Alahdab
Expires: January 27, 2021                                     Individual
                                                           G. Galimberti
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           July 26, 2020


   Conveying Transceiver-Related Information within RSVP-TE Signaling
                draft-meuric-ccamp-tsvmode-signaling-01

Abstract

   The ReSource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering extensions
   (RSVP-TE) allows to carry optical information so as to set up
   channels over Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) networks between
   a pair of transceivers.  Nowadays, there are many transceivers that
   not only support tunable lasers, but also multiple modulation
   formats.  This memo leverages the Generalized Multiprotocol Label
   Switching protocol extensions to support the signaling of the
   associated information as a "mode" parameter within a "transceiver
   type" context.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27, 2021.




Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Main Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Single Control Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Open Line Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Signaling Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  WDM-Transceiver-ModeID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  WDM-Tranceiver-Param Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Downstream Direction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  Upstream Direction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The ITU-T's recommendation [G.694.1] defines the flexi-grid
   technology as the latest evolution of the WDM data plane.  [RFC7689]
   defines the extensions to the RSVP-TE signaling ([RFC3473]) to
   provision lightpaths in WDM networks, from transceiver to
   transceiver, including transit Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop
   Multiplexers (ROADMs).  [RFC7792] specifies the encoding of the flex-
   grid label to be carried within RSVP-TE signaling messages,
   leveraging the reconfiguration capability of optical switches and the
   wavelength tunability of the transceivers at both ends of the optical
   signal.



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   To address the various requirements of optical networks, some
   transceivers are supporting multiple modulation formats, baudrates,
   FECs, etc.  This capability enables to select at setup time the right
   trade-off between bitrate, baudrate, reach, spectral width, etc.
   This memo defines the required fields to explicitly addresses this
   case of "elastic" transceivers.  Two options are proposed to address
   this issue.  The first extension relies on a two-stage identifier: a
   Transceiver Type, allowing to summarize the set of capabilities and
   consistently correlate both ends of a given optical channel, and a
   Transceiver ModeID, i.e. a hardware-related identifier to be
   interpreted within the Type context.  The second extension replaces
   the aforementioned ModeID by a set of optical parameters.  In the
   latter, the exact list of fields will follow
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang]

2.  Main Use Cases

   In the following section, it is assumed that, to be able to meet
   optical performance requirements, the Routing and Wavelength
   Assignment (RWA) tasks are performed before the signaling messages
   leave the ingress ROADM.  This could happen in various ways, provided
   the network topology is available, including optical parameters
   (e.g., advertised using [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-iv-encode]).  This
   includes ROADM-local computation process, passive PCE responding to
   the ingress ROADM's request [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext]), as well
   centralized controllers relying on PCEP to trigger the RSVP-TE
   signaling in the ingress node ([RFC8281]).

2.1.  Single Control Domain

   We consider that transceivers are in the same control domain as the
   optical switches.  In many deployments, transceivers are embedded in
   the edge ROADM shelves, where both the transceiver and the optical
   switching are configured by the same set of local control processes.
   In this case, carrying the Mode parameter in RSVP-TE signaling is
   required to configure the egress side of the signaling session.  Even
   though some receiver implementations may be able to detect the
   modulation format without configuration, most operational deployments
   rely on bidirectional signals, thus making the modulation information
   a mandatory parameter to fully configure the egress transceiver in
   most cases.

   The specification below allows to address this use case.








Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


2.2.  Open Line Systems

   We now consider that transceivers are installed in shelves
   independant from the ROADMs.  The set of ROADMs is referred to as the
   "optical line", the shelves carrying the transceivers are named
   "client devices".  This use case is aligned with the problem
   statement specified in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk] and is
   consistent with [RFC7698].

       --Path-->  --Path-->                           --Path-->
               ___  _ _ _                    _ _ _  ___
      ___     |   |/              _ _ _  ___      \|   |     ___
     |   |____|   |_ _ _               \|   |      |   |____|   |
     |___|    |   |                     |   |      |   |    |___|
       Ti     |___|\_ _ _               |   |_____/|___|      Te
                Ri                _ _ _/|___|        Re
       <--Resv--  <--Resv--               R           <--Resv--

   Figure 1: Transceivers (Ti, Te) Connected to an Open Line System

   T is a transceiver shelf.

   R is a ROADM.  Only edge ROADMs are depicted here but le line system
   is typically a mesh of multiple ROADMs and amplifiers.

   From the signaling perspective, T and R are refered to as Ti/Ri (Te/
   Re) to identify the ingress end (egress end, respectively).

   The network topology and the associated optical parameters are only
   advertised among the ROADMs, part of the line system, i.e. the
   topology information does not leak up to the transceiver shelves
   (otherwise, that is a specific case of [[CREF1: Section 2.1]]).
   Therefore, beyond the usual signaling features, the resulting
   signaling messages serve 3 additional purposes:

   o  advertise the ingress Transceiver Type to the optical line, in
      charge of the decision related to the optical path across the
      network,

   o  convey the Transceiver Type up to the egress Transceiver, allowing
      to check correct match between both ends (as in [[CREF2:
      Section 2.1]]),

   o  inform transceivers at both ends about the Transceiver Mode
      allocated by the optical line.

   The specification below allows to address this use case.




Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


3.  Signaling Messages

   The following sections specify the fields used in the RSVP-TE Path
   and Resv messages to address the requirements above.

3.1.  Encodings

   This documents specifies two sub-TLVs.  Both serve the same purpose,
   with a different level of details: the transceiver mode is described
   either using an identifier or a detailed set of parameters.  As a
   result, an RSVP-TE message SHOULD only carry one of the sub-TLV for a
   given hop.  In case several of the sub-TLVs below are included, the
   first one takes precedence and the following ones are ignored.

3.1.1.  WDM-Transceiver-ModeID Sub-TLV

   This document introduces the WDM-Transceiver-ModeID sub-TLV so as to
   carry the Transceiver Type and ModeID.  It has the following format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Type = TBD1  |  Length = 16  |   Reserved    |AppID Type=TBD6|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              OUI                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          OUI (cont'd)         |            ModeID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            Tsv-Type                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Application ID Type (8 bits): As per section 5 of
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp], this field allows to distinguish
   between the possible encodings of the trailing "Application ID"
   field.  This specification defines a new Application ID Type (value
   TBD6) that extends the "Proprietary" type and specifies specific
   fields within the "value" bytes:

   o  the first 6 bytes of the Application Identifier must contain the
      hexadecimal representation of an Organizationally Unique
      Identifier (OUI);

   o  the following 2 bytes encode a ModeID;

   o  the last 4 bytes carry a Tsv-Type.

   Tsv-Type (32 bits): A transponder-specific value allowing to identify
   a compatible Tsv-Type at the remote end, and supporting a set of



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   optical ModeIDs.  This value MUST be included by the ingress
   transceiver, i.e. from the signaling first hop. 0 is a Reserved value
   that MUST trigger a PathErr message in response, with Error Code 24
   (Routing Problem) and Error Sub-code TBD3 ("Unsupported Tsv-Type").

   ModeID (16 bits): Within a given Tsv-Type, this ID allows to specify
   how the transceiver should be configured among the set of options
   supported by Tsv-Type; e.g. optical modulation format or baudrate.
   The value 0 means that the sending device has not chosen a particular
   ModeID and expects this information to be determined by a downstream
   node (e.g., the ingress ROADM of the optical line).  If the Tsv-Type
   resolves into a single ModeID, the ModeID field SHOULD use a non-zero
   value and MAY be ignored.  A transceiver receiving a ModeID with the
   value 0 MAY select a mode based on local policies combined to other
   signaling information, e.g. channel spectral width.

3.1.2.  WDM-Tranceiver-Param Sub-TLV

   This document introduces the WDM-Transceiver-Param sub-TLV so as to
   carry the Transceiver Type identifier and the "detailed mode"
   description, which is a subset of the ones specified in
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang].  It is aligned on figure 3 in
   [I-D.ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label] and has the following
   format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Type = TBD           |          Length = 20          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Modulation Format       |        Bits per Symbol        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            FEC-ID             |      Min OSNR Threshold       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           Baud-rate                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Channel output power     |           Tsv-Type            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Modulation Format: A codepoint identifying the modulation format of
   the transceiver signal.  Knowing this parameter is not mandatory to
   perform an optical path computation, thus the value 0 is acceptable
   within a successful signaling session.

   Bits per Symbol (16 bits): A nonnegative integer specifying the
   number of bits encoded per symbol value in case of hybrid modulation
   format.  It is an off-set with values from 0 to 127 to be applied to
   the specified Modulation Format and indicates the mix between the



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   selected Modulation Format and its upper adjacent (e.g.  QPSK + 63
   bits per symbol indicates that there is a 50% MIX between QPSK and
   8-QAM = 2.5 bits per symbol).  If value = 0 the standard Modulation
   Format is applied.

   FEC-ID (16 bits): A codepoint identifying the Forward Error
   Correction of the transceiver.

   Min OSNR Threshold (16 bits): An integer specifying the minimum
   accepted threshold for the Optical Signal-Noise Ratio in 0.1 nm.

   Baud-rate (32 bits): A nonnegative integer specifying the number of
   symbols per second.

   Channel Ouput Power (16 bits): An integer specifying the signal power
   coming out of the transceiver (in dB or W?).  The value 0 means
   "unspecified".  If a transceiver receives an unspecified value, its
   data plane SHOULD be configured according to its local policy (e.g.
   fixed or default value).

   Tsv-Type (16 bits): A transponder-specific value allowing to identify
   a compatible Tsv-Type at the remote end.  This field MAY be set to 0,
   which is a reserved value to disable Tsv-Type checking between end
   transceivers (e.g. because it is useless).

3.2.  Processing

3.2.1.  Downstream Direction

   The parameters to be used by the egress transceivers are carried in
   Path messages.  In RSVP-TE signaling, hop-specific information is
   encoded within the ERO as hop attributes and WDM parameters are to be
   carried as sub-TLVs within the Type 4 TLV of the Hop Attribute
   subobject [RFC7689].

   When sending a Path message, if a signaling head end node includes
   one of the WDM-Transceiver sub-TLVs specified in this document, the
   entity in charge of the path computation (e.g. the ingress ROADM)
   MUST include (unless an error is raised), as part of the ERO
   population step, the same sub-TLV to specify the Hop Attibutes of the
   tail end transceiver, allowing this information to be propagated
   along the RSVP-TE Path messages.

   A signaling head end node sending a Path message including one of the
   WDM-Transceiver sub-TLVs specified in the previous section with
   unallocated values, i.e. Mode-defining fields set to 0 (e.g.  "ModeID
   = 0" in the WDM-Transceiver-ModeID sub-TLV), MUST include an empty
   RRO to request its population by some downstream nodes [RFC3209].  In



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   case the Mode specification is fully defined before the first
   signaling hop (e.g. operator-specified), the use of the RRO remains
   OPTIONAL.

3.2.2.  Upstream Direction

   When the mode selection happens after the signaling has left the
   signaling head node, which carries the ingress transceiver, the
   selected value needs to be sent back to the head node.  As specified
   in [RFC7570], it can be included in the Record Route Object (RRO)
   within RSVP-TE Resv messages.  Starting from the fact that both end
   transceivers share a common mode to properly set up a channel, this
   leads to the following processing:

   o  After a transceiver shelf (signaling tail end or regenerator) has
      received a Path message:

      *  If both an RRO and a WDM-Transceiver sub-TLV (defined above)
         are included, the node MUST populate, in the responding Resv
         message, the RRO with its own hop attributes, using the
         corresponding sub-TLV.  At this stage, the values of the Mode-
         defining fields MUST be allocated, wherever the selection has
         happened (e.g., ingress ROADM, local decision).

      *  If the Mode description is not supported, the node MUST respond
         using a PathErr with Error Code 24 (Routing Problem) and Error
         Sub-code TBD4 ("Unsupported Transceiver Mode").

      *  If the values within the WDM-Transceiver sub-TLV are not
         allocated and the node is unable to make a local allocation, it
         MUST respond using a PathErr with Error Code 24 (Routing
         Problem) and Error Sub-code TBD5 ("Unable to Select Transceiver
         Mode")

   o  When a signaling head end node pending a mode information receives
      a Resv message, it MUST look into the RRO and configure itself
      consistently with the hop attribute information associated to the
      remote transceiver.  A signaling head node receiving an
      inconsistent Mode (unupported or not matching the corresponding
      Path state) MUST respond using a ResvErr with Error Code 24
      (Routing Problem) and Error Sub-code TBD4 ("Unsupported
      Transceiver Mode").

4.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to allocate, from the "Sub-TLV Types for WSON
   Processing Hop Attribute TLV" section within the "RSVP-TE Parameters"
   registry:



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


              +-------+------------------------+------------+
              | Value | Meaning                | Reference  |
              +-------+------------------------+------------+
              | TDB1  | WDM-Transceiver-ModeID | [This I-D] |
              | TDB2  | WDM-Transceiver-Param  | [This I-D] |
              +-------+------------------------+------------+

   The IANA is requested to allocate, from the "Error Codes and
   Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section within the "RSVP
   Parameters" registry:

   +-----------+----------+-------------------------------+------------+
   | Error     | Sub-code | Meaning                       | Reference  |
   | Code      |          |                               |            |
   +-----------+----------+-------------------------------+------------+
   | 24        | TBD3     | Unsupported Tsv-Type          | [This I-D] |
   |           | TBD4     | Unsupported Transceiver Mode  | [This I-D] |
   |           | TBD5     | Unable to Select Transceiver  | [This I-D] |
   |           |          | Mode                          |            |
   +-----------+----------+-------------------------------+------------+

   The IANA is requested to create, within the "GMPLS Signaling
   Parameters" registry, two new sub-registries named "WDM Modulation
   Formats" and "WDM FEC Types".

   For both of them:

   o  the value 0 means "Pending selection",

   o  the range 1-65503 follows the Expert Review policy for
      registration,

   o  the range 65504-65535 is for experimental use.

   The "WDM Modulation Format" sub-registry is initialized as follows:

                   +-------------+---------------------+
                   | Value       | Modulation Format   |
                   +-------------+---------------------+
                   | 0           | Pending selection   |
                   | 1           | QPSK                |
                   | 2           | 8-QAM               |
                   | 3           | 16-QAM              |
                   | 4           | 32-QAM              |
                   | 5           | 64-QAM              |
                   | 6-63999     | Unallocated         |
                   | 64000-65535 | Vendor-specific use |
                   +-------------+---------------------+



Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   The "WDM FEC Types" sub-registry is initialized as follows:

                   +-------------+---------------------+
                   | Value       | FEC Types           |
                   +-------------+---------------------+
                   | 0           | Pending selection   |
                   | 1           | Reed Solomon FEC    |
                   | 2           | Staircase FEC       |
                   | 3           | O-FEC               |
                   | 4-63999     | Unallocated         |
                   | 64000-65535 | Vendor-specific use |
                   +-------------+---------------------+

   The IANA is requested to allocate, from the "Application ID Type"
   section within the "LMP" registry:

     +------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
     | Type | Meaning                 | Reference                    |
     +------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
     | TBA  | G.698.2                 | [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp] |
     | TBA  | OUI + proprietary value | [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp] |
     | TBD6 | OUI + Tsv-Type + ModeID | [This document]              |
     +------+-------------------------+------------------------------+

5.  Security Considerations

   This specification only adds TLVs to RSVP-TE signaling messages.  As
   a result, it relies on security guidelines documented in [RFC5920].

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas for his valuable
   feedback on the work related to this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label]
              Galimberti, G., Fauci, D., Zanardi, A., Galvagni, L., and
              J. Meuric, "Signaling extensions for Media Channel sub-
              carriers configuration in Spectrum Switched Optical
              Networks (SSON) in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Optical
              Line Systems.", draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-
              label-09 (work in progress), March 2020.






Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp]
              Hiremagalur, D., Grammel, G., Galimberti, G., Kunze, R.,
              and D. Beller, "Extension to the Link Management Protocol
              (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense Wavelength Division
              Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage the
              application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM
              application", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-02 (work in
              progress), May 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext]
              Lee, Y. and R. Casellas, "PCEP Extension for WSON Routing
              and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17
              (work in progress), March 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC7570]  Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
              Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
              Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.

   [RFC7689]  Bernstein, G., Ed., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Ed., Martinelli, G.,
              and H. Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength
              Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7689,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7689, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7689>.






Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   [RFC7792]  Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
              and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in
              Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
              Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7792,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7792, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7792>.

   [RFC8281]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk]
              Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., Galimberti, G., and J.
              Meuric, "A framework for Management and Control of DWDM
              optical interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-
              mng-ctrl-fwk-13 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang]
              Galimberti, G., Kunze, R., Burk, A., Hiremagalur, D., and
              G. Grammel, "A YANG model to manage the optical interface
              parameters for an external transponder in a WDM network",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-04 (work in progress),
              May 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-iv-encode]
              Martinelli, G., Lee, Y., Galimberti, G., and F. Zhang,
              "Information Encoding for WSON with Impairments
              Validation", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-iv-encode-02 (work in
              progress), January 2019.

   [RFC7698]  Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F.,
              Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and
              Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
              Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks",
              RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698>.

Authors' Addresses









Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Transponder Info in RSVP-TE             July 2020


   Julien Meuric (editor)
   Orange
   2 avenue Pierre Marzin
   Lannion  22300
   France

   Email: julien.meuric@orange.com


   Esther Le Rouzic
   Orange
   2 avenue Pierre Marzin
   Lannion  22300
   France

   Email: esther.lerouzic@orange.com


   Luay Alahdab
   Individual
   Lannion  22300
   France

   Email: luayahdab@gmail.com


   Gabriele Galimberti
   Cisco
   Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
   Vimercate  20871
   Italy

   Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com


















Meuric, Ed., et al.     Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/