You are here: irt.org | RFCs | RFC8131 [ previous next ]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Zhang
Request for Comments: 8131 H. Zheng, Ed.
Category: Informational Huawei Technologies
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Gandhi, Ed.
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Brzozowski
ADVA Optical
March 2017
RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for
End-to-End GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing
Abstract
In non-packet transport networks, there are requirements where the
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) end-to-end recovery
scheme needs to employ a restoration Label Switched Path (LSP) while
keeping resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs reserved in
the network after the failure occurs.
This document reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using
Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
signaling in the context of a GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme when
using restoration LSP where failed LSP is not torn down. In
addition, this document discusses resource sharing-based setup and
teardown of LSPs as well as LSP reversion procedures. No new
signaling extensions are defined by this document, and it is strictly
informative in nature.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8131.
Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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 ....................................................3 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4 2.1. Terminology ................................................4 2.2. Abbreviations ..............................................4 3. Overview ........................................................4 3.1. Examples of Restoration Schemes ............................5 3.1.1. 1+R Restoration .....................................5 3.1.2. 1+1+R Restoration ...................................6 3.1.2.1. 1+1+R Restoration - Variants ...............7 3.2. Resource Sharing by Restoration LSP ........................7 4. RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure .....................................8 4.1. Restoration LSP Association ................................8 4.2. Resource Sharing-Based Restoration LSP Setup ...............8 4.3. LSP Reversion .............................................10 4.3.1. Make-While-Break Reversion .........................10 4.3.2. Make-Before-Break Reversion ........................11 5. Security Considerations ........................................12 6. IANA Considerations ............................................13 7. References .....................................................13 7.1. Normative References ......................................13 7.2. Informative References ....................................13 Acknowledgements .................................................14 Contributors ......................................................14 Authors' Addresses ................................................15 Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 1. Introduction Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] defines a set of protocols, including Open Shortest Path First - Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) [RFC4203] and Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC3473]. These protocols can be used to set up Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in non-packet transport networks. The GMPLS protocol extends MPLS to support interfaces capable of Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), Lambda Switching and Fiber Switching. These switching technologies provide several protection schemes [RFC4426] [RFC4427] (e.g., 1+1, 1:N, and M:N). RSVP-TE signaling has been extended to support various GMPLS recovery schemes, such as end-to-end recovery [RFC4872] and segment recovery [RFC4873]. As described in [RFC6689], an ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "Recovery" [RFC4872] can be signaled in the RSVP Path message to identify the LSPs for restoration. Also, an ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "Resource Sharing" [RFC4873] can be signaled in the RSVP Path message to identify the LSPs for resource sharing. Section 2.2 of [RFC6689] reviews the procedure for providing LSP associations for GMPLS end-to-end recovery, and Section 2.4 of that document reviews the procedure for providing LSP associations for sharing resources. Generally, GMPLS end-to-end recovery schemes have the restoration LSP set up after the failure has been detected and notified on the working LSP. For a recovery scheme with revertive behavior, a restoration LSP is set up while the working LSP and/or protecting LSP are not torn down in the control plane due to a failure. In non- packet transport networks, because working LSPs are typically set up over preferred paths, service providers would like to keep resources associated with the working LSPs reserved. This is to make sure that the service can be reverted to the preferred path (working LSP) when the failure is repaired to provide deterministic behavior and a guaranteed Service Level Agreement (SLA). In this document, we review procedures for GMPLS LSP associations, resource-sharing-based LSP setup, teardown, and LSP reversion for non-packet transport networks, including the following: o The procedure for providing LSP associations for the GMPLS end-to- end recovery using restoration LSP where working and protecting LSPs are not torn down and resources are kept reserved in the network after the failure. o The procedure for resource sharing using the Shared Explicit (SE) flag in conjunction with an ASSOCIATION object. In [RFC3209], the Make-Before-Break (MBB) method assumes the old and new LSPs share Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 the SESSION object and signal SE flag in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object for sharing resources. According to [RFC6689], an ASSOCIATION object with Association Type "Resource Sharing" in the Path message enables the sharing of resources across LSPs with different SESSION objects. o The procedures for LSP reversion and resource sharing, when using end-to-end recovery scheme with revertive behavior. This document is strictly informative in nature and does not define any RSVP-TE signaling extensions. 2. Conventions Used in This Document 2.1. Terminology The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC4872], and [RFC4873]. The terminology for GMPLS recovery is defined in [RFC4427]. 2.2. Abbreviations GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching LSP: Label Switched Path MBB: Make-Before-Break MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol SE: Shared Explicit (flag) TDM: Time Division Multiplexing TE: Traffic Engineering 3. Overview The GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme, as defined in [RFC4872] and discussed in this document, switches normal traffic to an alternate LSP that is not even partially established only after the working LSP failure occurs. The new alternate route is selected at the LSP head- end node, it may reuse resources of the failed LSP at intermediate nodes and may include additional intermediate nodes and/or links. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 3.1. Examples of Restoration Schemes Two forms of end-to-end recovery schemes, 1+R restoration and 1+1+R restoration, are described in the following sections. Other forms of end-to-end recovery schemes also exist, and they can use these signaling techniques. 3.1.1. 1+R Restoration One example of the recovery scheme considered in this document is 1+R recovery. The 1+R recovery scheme is exemplified in Figure 1. In this example, a working LSP on path A-B-C-Z is pre-established. Typically, after a failure detection and notification on the working LSP, a second LSP on path A-H-I-J-Z is established as a restoration LSP. Unlike a protecting LSP, which is set up before the failure, a restoration LSP is set up when needed, after the failure. +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | A +----+ B +-----+ C +-----+ Z | +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ +--+--+ \ / \ / +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ | H +-------+ I +--------+ J | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Figure 1: An Example of 1+R Recovery Scheme During failure switchover with 1+R recovery scheme, in general, working LSP resources are not released so that working and restoration LSPs coexist in the network. Nonetheless, working and restoration LSPs can share network resources. Typically, when the failure has recovered on the working LSP, the restoration LSP is no longer required and is torn down while the traffic is reverted to the original working LSP. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 3.1.2. 1+1+R Restoration Another example of the recovery scheme considered in this document is 1+1+R. In 1+1+R, a restoration LSP is set up for the working LSP and/or the protecting LSP after the failure has been detected; this recovery scheme is exemplified in Figure 2. +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | D +-------+ E +--------+ F | +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ / \ / \ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ +--+--+ | A +----+ B +-----+ C +-----+ Z | +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ +--+--+ \ / \ / +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ | H +-------+ I +--------+ J | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Figure 2: An Example of 1+1+R Recovery Scheme In this example, a working LSP on path A-B-C-Z and a protecting LSP on path A-D-E-F-Z are pre-established. After a failure detection and notification on the working LSP or protecting LSP, a third LSP on path A-H-I-J-Z is established as a restoration LSP. The restoration LSP, in this case, provides protection against failure of both the working and protecting LSPs. During failure switchover with the 1+1+R recovery scheme, in general, failed LSP resources are not released so that working, protecting, and restoration LSPs coexist in the network. The restoration LSP can share network resources with the working LSP, and it can share network resources with the protecting LSP. Typically, the restoration LSP is torn down when the traffic is reverted to the original LSP and is no longer needed. There are two possible models when using a restoration LSP with 1+1+R recovery scheme: o A restoration LSP is set up after either a working or a protecting LSP fails. Only one restoration LSP is present at a time. o A restoration LSP is set up after both the working and protecting LSPs fail. Only one restoration LSP is present at a time. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 3.1.2.1. 1+1+R Restoration - Variants Two other possible variants exist when using a restoration LSP with 1+1+R recovery scheme: o A restoration LSP is set up after either a working or protecting LSP fails. Two different restoration LSPs may be present, one for the working LSP and one for the protecting LSP. o Two different restoration LSPs are set up after both working and protecting LSPs fail, one for the working LSP and one for the protecting LSP. In all these models, if a restoration LSP also fails, it is torn down and a new restoration LSP is set up. 3.2. Resource Sharing by Restoration LSP +-----+ +-----+ | F +------+ G +--------+ +--+--+ +-----+ | | | | | +-----+ +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ | A +----+ B +-----+ C +--X---+ D +-----+ E | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Figure 3: Resource Sharing in 1+R Recovery Scheme Using the network shown in Figure 3 as an example using 1+R recovery scheme, LSP1 (A-B-C-D-E) is the working LSP; assume it allows for resource sharing when the LSP traffic is dynamically restored. Upon detecting the failure of a link along the LSP1, e.g., Link C-D, node A needs to decide which alternative path it will use to signal restoration LSP and reroute traffic. In this case, A-B-C-F-G-E is chosen as the restoration LSP path, and the resources on the path segment A-B-C are reused by this LSP. The working LSP is not torn down and coexists with the restoration LSP. When the head-end node A signals the restoration LSP, nodes C, F, G, and E reconfigure the resources (as listed in Table 1 of this document) to set up the LSP by sending cross-connection command to the data plane. In the recovery scheme employing revertive behavior, after the failure is repaired, the resources on nodes C and E need to be reconfigured to set up the working LSP (using a procedure described in Section 4.3 of this document) by sending cross-connection command to the data plane. The traffic is then reverted back to the original working LSP. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 4. RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure 4.1. Restoration LSP Association Where GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme needs to employ a restoration LSP while keeping resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs reserved in the network after the failure, the restoration LSP is set up with an ASSOCIATION object that has the Association Type set to "Recovery" [RFC4872], the Association ID and the Association Source set to the corresponding Association ID and the Association Source signaled in the Path message of the LSP it is restoring. For example, when a restoration LSP is signaled for a failed working LSP, the ASSOCIATION object in the Path message of the restoration LSP contains the Association ID and Association Source set to the Association ID and Association Source signaled in the working LSP for the "Recovery" Association Type. Similarly, when a restoration LSP is set up for a failed protecting LSP, the ASSOCIATION object in the Path message of the restoration LSP contains the Association ID and Association Source is set to the Association ID and Association Source signaled in the protecting LSP for the "Recovery" Association Type. The procedure for signaling the PROTECTION object is specified in [RFC4872]. Specifically, the restoration LSP used for a working LSP is set up with the P bit cleared in the PROTECTION object in the Path message of the restoration LSP and the restoration LSP used for a protecting LSP is set up with the P bit set in the PROTECTION object in the Path message of the restoration LSP. 4.2. Resource Sharing-Based Restoration LSP Setup GMPLS LSPs can share resources during LSP setup if they have the Shared Explicit (SE) flag set in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE objects [RFC3209] in the Path messages that create them and: o As defined in [RFC3209], LSPs have identical SESSION objects, and/or o As defined in [RFC6689], LSPs have matching ASSOCIATION objects with the Association Type set to "Resource Sharing" signaled in their Path messages. In this case, LSPs can have different SESSION objects i.e., a different Tunnel ID, Source and/or Destination signaled in their Path messages. As described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3209], the purpose of make-before- break is not to disrupt traffic, or adversely impact network operations while TE tunnel rerouting is in progress. In non-packet transport networks, during the RSVP-TE signaling procedure, the nodes Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 set up cross-connections along the LSP accordingly. Because the cross-connection cannot simultaneously connect a shared resource to different resources in two alternative LSPs, nodes may not be able to fulfill this request when LSPs share resources. For LSP restoration upon failure, as explained in Section 11 of [RFC4872], the reroute procedure may reuse existing resources. The action of the intermediate nodes during the rerouting process to reconfigure cross-connections does not further impact the traffic since it has been interrupted due to the already failed LSP. The node actions for setting up the restoration LSP can be categorized into the following: -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Category | Action | -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Reusing existing resource on | This type of node needs to | | both input and output interfaces | reserve the existing resources | | (nodes A & B in Figure 3). | and no cross-connection | | | command is needed. | -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Reusing an existing resource only| This type of node needs to | | on one of the interfaces, either | reserve the resources and send | | input or output interfaces, and | the reconfiguration | | using new resource on the | cross-connection command to its| | other interfaces. | corresponding data plane | | (nodes C & E in Figure 3). | node on the interfaces where | | | new resources are needed, and | | | it needs to reuse the existing | | | resources on the other | | | interfaces. | -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Using new resources on both | This type of node needs to | | interfaces. | reserve the new resources | | (nodes F & G in Figure 3). | and send the cross-connection | | | command on both interfaces. | -----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Table 1: Node Actions during Restoration LSP Setup Depending on whether or not the resource is reused, the node actions differ. This deviates from normal LSP setup, since some nodes do not need to reconfigure the cross-connection. Also, the judgment of whether the control plane node needs to send a cross-connection setup or modification command to its corresponding data plane node(s) relies on the check whether the LSPs are sharing resources. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 4.3. LSP Reversion If the end-to-end LSP recovery scheme employs the revertive behavior, as described in Section 3 of this document, traffic can be reverted from the restoration LSP to the working or protecting LSP after its failure is recovered. The LSP reversion can be achieved using two methods: 1. Make-While-Break Reversion: resources associated with a working or protecting LSP are reconfigured while removing reservations for the restoration LSP. 2. Make-Before-Break Reversion: resources associated with a working or protecting LSP are reconfigured before removing reservations for the restoration LSP. In non-packet transport networks, both of the above reversion methods will result in some traffic disruption when the restoration LSP and the LSP being restored are sharing resources and the cross- connections need to be reconfigured on intermediate nodes. 4.3.1. Make-While-Break Reversion In this reversion method, restoration LSP is simply requested to be deleted by the head-end. Removing reservations for restoration LSP triggers reconfiguration of resources associated with a working or protecting LSP on every node where resources are shared. The working or protecting LSP state was not removed from the nodes when the failure occurred. Whenever reservation for restoration LSP is removed from a node, data plane configuration changes to reflect reservations of working or protecting LSP as signaling progresses. Eventually, after the whole restoration LSP is deleted, data plane configuration will fully match working or protecting LSP reservations on the whole path. Thus, reversion is complete. Make-while-break, while being relatively simple in its logic, has a few limitations as follows which may not be acceptable in some networks: o No rollback If, for some reason, reconfiguration of the data plane on one of the nodes, to match working or protecting LSP reservations, fails, falling back to restoration LSP is no longer an option, as its state might have already been removed from other nodes. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 o No completion guarantee Deletion of an LSP provides no guarantees of completion. In particular, if RSVP packets are lost due to a node or link failure, it is possible for an LSP to be only partially deleted. To mitigate this, RSVP could maintain soft state reservations and, hence, eventually remove remaining reservations due to refresh timeouts. This approach is not feasible in non-packet transport networks, however, where control and data channels are often separated; hence, soft state reservations are not useful. Finally, one could argue that graceful LSP deletion [RFC3473] would provide a guarantee of completion. While this is true for most cases, many implementations will time out graceful deletion if LSP is not removed within certain amount of time, e.g., due to a transit node fault. After that, deletion procedures that provide no completion guarantees will be attempted. Hence, in corner cases a completion guarantee cannot be provided. o No explicit notification of completion to head-end node In some cases, it may be useful for a head-end node to know when the data plane has been reconfigured to match working or protecting LSP reservations. This knowledge could be used for initiating operations like enabling alarm monitoring, power equalization, and others. Unfortunately, for the reasons mentioned above, make-while-break reversion lacks such explicit notification. 4.3.2. Make-Before-Break Reversion This reversion method can be used to overcome limitations of make- while-break reversion. It is similar in spirit to the MBB concept used for re-optimization. Instead of relying on deletion of the restoration LSP, the head-end chooses to establish a new reversion LSP that duplicates the configuration of the resources on the working or protecting LSP and uses identical ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION objects in the Path message of that LSP. Only if the setup of this LSP is successful will other (restoration and working or protecting) LSPs be deleted by the head-end. MBB reversion consists of two parts: A) Make part: Creating a new reversion LSP following working or protecting the LSP. The reversion LSP shares all of the resources of the working or protecting LSP and may share resources with the restoration LSP. As the reversion LSP is created, resources are Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 reconfigured to match its reservations. Hence, after the reversion LSP is created, data plane configuration reflects working or protecting LSP reservations. B) Break part: After the "make" part is finished, the original working or protecting and restoration LSPs are torn down, and the reversion LSP becomes the new working or protecting LSP. Removing reservations for working or restoration LSPs does not cause any resource reconfiguration on the reversion LSP -- nodes follow same procedures for the "break" part of any MBB operation. Hence, after working or protecting and restoration LSPs are removed, the data plane configuration is exactly the same as before starting restoration. Thus, reversion is complete. MBB reversion uses make-before-break characteristics to overcome challenges related to make-while-break reversion as follow: o Rollback If the "make" part fails, the (existing) restoration LSP will still be used to carry existing traffic as the restoration LSP state was not removed. Same logic applies here as for any MBB operation failure. o Completion guarantee LSP setup is resilient against RSVP message loss, as Path and Resv messages are refreshed periodically. Hence, given that the network recovers from node and link failures eventually, reversion LSP setup is guaranteed to finish with either success or failure. o Explicit notification of completion to head-end node The head-end knows that the data plane has been reconfigured to match working or protecting LSP reservations on the intermediate nodes when it receives a Resv message for the reversion LSP. 5. Security Considerations This document reviews procedures defined in [RFC3209], [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [RFC6689] and does not define any new procedures. This document does not introduce any new security issues; security issues were already covered in [RFC3209], [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [RFC6689]. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 6. IANA Considerations This document does not require any IANA actions. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [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, <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>. [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>. [RFC6689] Berger, L., "Usage of the RSVP ASSOCIATION Object", RFC 6689, DOI 10.17487/RFC6689, July 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6689>. 7.2. Informative References [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>. [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 [RFC4426] Lang, J., Ed., Rajagopalan, B., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, DOI 10.17487/RFC4426, March 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4426>. [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank: - George Swallow for the discussions on the GMPLS restoration. - Lou Berger for the guidance on this work. - Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram, and Christian Hopps for reviewing this document and providing valuable comments. A special thanks to Dale Worley for his thorough review of this document. Contributors Gabriele Maria Galimberti Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8131 GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing March 2017 Authors' Addresses Xian Zhang Huawei Technologies F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 China Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com Haomian Zheng (editor) Huawei Technologies F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 China Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Rakesh Gandhi (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: zali@cisco.com Pawel Brzozowski ADVA Optical Email: PBrzozowski@advaoptical.com Zhang, et al. Informational [Page 15]