| Internet-Draft | Transport SIMAP | May 2025 |
| Busi & Zheng | Expires 27 November 2025 | [Page] |
This document explores the applicability of the Service & Infrastructure Maps (SIMAP) concepts to transport networks and it examines the YANG data models defined by the IETF to support the requirements and use cases for SIMAP applicability to transport networks.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://italobusi.github.io/transport-simap/draft-busi-nmop-transport-simap.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-busi-nmop-transport-simap/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Management Operations mailing list (mailto:nmop@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmop/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmop/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/italobusi/transport-simap.¶
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 27 November 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The concept of Service & Infrastructure Maps (SIMAP) is being defined in [I-D.ietf-nmop-simap-concept] together with a set of SIMP requirements and use cases.¶
A transport network is a server-layer network designed to provide connectivity services for a client-layer network to carry the client traffic transparently across the server-layer network resources.¶
A transport network typically utilizes several different transport technologies such as the Optical Transport Networks (OTN) or Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM).¶
The concept of SIMAP applies to any type of networks, including but not being limited to transport networks.¶
This document complements the definitions in [I-D.ietf-nmop-simap-concept] providing specific requirements and use cases for SIMAP applicability to transport networks.¶
It also examines the YANG data models defined by the IETF to support these specific requirements and use cases at the northbound interface of an optical network controller.¶
The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-nmop-simap-concept] and are not redefined here:¶
Service & Infrastructure Maps (SIMAP)¶
The following terms are defined in [rfc9543] and are not redefined here:¶
Service Level Agreement (SLA)¶
Editors' Note: should we differentiate between SLA, SLO, SLE and SLI within this I-D?¶
TODO Overview of Key Requirements for Transport SIMAP¶
A transport network provides connectivity services to carry the client traffic transparently.¶
In order to allow monetization of the transport network connectivity services, transport networks are evolving to support connectivity services with differentiated SLAs.¶
Transport networks can support connectivity services with different requirements in terms of bandwidth, delay and availability, or any combination of them. For examples, some services may have different bandwidth requirements (e.g., 10G, 100G) or different delay requirements or different availability requirements. Other services can have both bandwidth and delay requirements or both delay and availability requirements.¶
An optical network controller is able to receive connectivity service requests with constraints in terms of bandwidth or delay or availability or any combination of them.¶
A transport network typically utilizes several different transport technologies such as the Optical Transport Networks (OTN) or Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM). Therefore the request to setup a new connectivity service would trigger multi-layer path computation and setup e.g. to determine whether:¶
an OTN tunnel already exists within the transport network to carry the new requested connectivity service while meeting the requested bandwidth, delay and availability requirements: in this case the optical network controller just configures the connectivity service on the two devices at the edge of the selected OTN tunnel;¶
a new OTN tunnel needs to be setup with the transport network and whether the path of this new OTN tunnel:¶
can re-use existing links or server-layer WDM tunnels: in this case the optical network controller starts the OTN tunnel setup procedure (e.g., through GMPLS signalling) and then configures the connectivity service on the two devices at the edge of the just set up OTN tunnel;¶
requires the setup of one ore more new WDM tunnels within the transport network: in this case the optical network controller:¶
Add some description about the top-down approach and multi-layer path computation/setup performed by optical controller¶
Describe why the optical controller needs to get the complete view of the optical resources (including the pluggable modules) although this might be controversial¶
Discuss about co-cabling and cotranching capability of the optical controller to improve the service provisioning with availability SLA¶
Related with protection and restoration. Current approach is based on the monitoring of the status of the connection (SF or SD) triggering re-routing. SF is mainly related to loss of continuity. What about latency degradation?¶
Provide more enhanced SD definitions (latency)¶
Need to notify the status of the protection/restoration after a failure occurs. The customer may request to reconfigure the service availability (e.g., from 1+1 to always-1+1) or do nothing.¶
More discussion to be done based on the availability monetization description¶
TODO YANG Models Applicability¶
TODO Evaluate: OTN/WDM/ETH topology, Tunnel, client-signal, path computation models. Planning maybe a gap or Inventory (location) is sufficient¶
TODO Evaluate: RFC8632, Incident models¶
TODO Evaluate: performance monitoring models¶
TODO Security¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
TODO Acknowledgments¶