1. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Routing Extensions to Support Network Elements with Switching Constraint Wataru Imajuku: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jpimajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp Yoshiaki Sone: sone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jpsone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp Itaru Nishioka: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.comi-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-switching-constraint-01.txt

2. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Objective of This Draft and Related Studies Objective of This Draft –Provides routing scheme of Lambda LSPs in the networks specifically having constraint in TE-Link Selectivity Related Documents –RFC4054 Discusses Signaling Impairment in transparent optical networks –draft-ashwood-ccamp-gmpls-constraint-reqts-0x.txt (Expired) Proposes to advertise abstract link information of the network having optical constraint –draft-shiba-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt Proposed bit-map advertisement of status of wavelength label –draft-rabbat-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-00.txt Signaling extensions to directly assign Wavelength of Lambda LSPs in non or limited wavelength convertible networks Handles constraint in Label Selectivity

3. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 New Problem Statements in This Draft Constraint in TE Link Selectivity –Sharp market rise of reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs) –ROADM has constraint in TE-Link Selectivity –ROADM has two groups of tributary ports, connectable only for East or West NNI GMPLS routers or other GMPLS capable nodes should –take into account the constraint of TE Link Selectivity.

4. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 RxTx Add Switches Drop Switches Drop Switches TE Link Selectivity in ROADMs RxTx Add Switches West Bound Tributary Port Group West Bound Bi-Directional LSP East Bound Bi-Directional LSP NNI Link (West) East Bound Tributary Port Group NNI Link (East) ROADM RxTx RxTx

5. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Example of ROADM Ring LSPs in ROADM Rings –LSPs from West Tributary Ports are terminated at East Tributary Ports –This is also true for the case of vice versa. Label Allocation –Approach 1 Routing Solve Label Allocation (Bit-map advertisement) (draft-shiba-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt) –Approach 2 Signaling Solve Label Allocation (Label Set + Null Upstream) IP Router #B NNI-W TE-Link of Tributary-W IP Router #B TE-Link of Tributary-E NNI-E IP Router #A NNI-E TE-Link of Tributary-E TE-Link of Tributary-W NNI-W

6. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Necessity of Extension In addition to bit-map information of wavelength status, information of TE-Link Selectivity is necessary Indispensable in multi-ring, ROADM/OXC hybrid networks IngressEgress Tributary-W Tributary-E Tributary-W OXC ROADM #X

7. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Possible GMPLS Routing Extensions Advertise –Selectable and/or Un-selectable TE-Link lists from advertised TE-Link –Sub-TLV TypeTBD –Length: variable –Name:Selectable/Un-Selectable Link Local Identifier

8. 67th IETF San Diego November 2006 Next Action Receiving feed back from several persons, now authors feel necessity of an analysis draft with the different view of RFC4054. –Model network architecture having constraint in wavelength selectivity and/or TE-Link selectivity –Analyze signaling procedure to establish LSPs in such networks –Analyze the minimum set of routing and signaling extensions Thanks Akira Nagata and Akira Chugo (Fujitsu) for giving us valuable feed back.