From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ee1bfdd --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3255.txt @@ -0,0 +1,451 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group N. Jones +Request for Comments: 3255 Agere Systems +Category: Standards Track C. Murton + Nortel Networks + April 2002 + + + Extending Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) over Synchronous Optical + NETwork/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) with virtual + concatenation, high order and low order payloads + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document describes an extension to the mapping of Point-to-Point + Protocol (PPP) into Synchronous Optical NETwork/Synchronous Digital + Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) to include the use of SONET/SDH SPE/VC virtual + concatenation and the use of both high order and low order payloads. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction................................................1 + 2. Rate Comparisons............................................2 + 3. Physical Layer Requirements.................................4 + 4. Standards Status............................................5 + 5. Security Considerations.....................................5 + 6. References..................................................6 + 7. Acknowledgements............................................6 + 8. Authors' Addresses..........................................7 + 9. Full Copyright Statement....................................8 + +1. Introduction + + Current implementations of PPP over SONET/SDH are required to select + transport structures from the relatively limited number of + contiguously concatenated signals that are available. + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + + The only currently supported SONET/SDH SPE/VCs in RFC 2615 [3] are + the following: + + SONET SDH + ---------------------------------------- + STS-3c-SPE VC-4 + STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c + STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c + STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c + + Note that VC-4-4c and above are not widely supported in SDH networks + at present. + + The use of virtual concatenation means that the right size SONET/SDH + bandwidth can be selected for PPP links. + + For the convenience of the reader, the equivalent terms are listed + below: + + SONET SDH + --------------------------------------------- + SPE VC + VT (1.5/2/6) Low order VC (VC-11/12/2) + STS SPE Higher Order VC (VC-3/4/4-Nc) + STS-1 frame STM-0 frame (rarely used) + STS-1 SPE VC-3 + STS-1-nv VC-3-nv (virtual concatenation) + STS-1 payload C-3 + STS-3c frame STM-1 frame, AU-4 + STS-3c SPE VC-4 + STS-3c-nv VC-4-nv (virtual concatenation) + STS-3c payload C-4 + STS-12c/48c/192c frame STM-4/16/64 frame, AU-4-4c/16c/64c + STS-12c/48c/192c-SPE VC-4-4c/16c/64c + STS-12c/48c/192c payload C-4-4c/16c/64c + + This table is an extended version of the equivalent table in RFC 2615 + [3]. Additional information on the above terms can be found in + Bellcore GR-253-CORE [4], ANSI T1.105 [5], ANSI T1.105.02 [6] and + ITU-T G.707 [7]. + +2. Rate Comparisons + + Currently supported WAN bandwidth links for PPP over SONET/SDH: + + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + + ANSI ETSI + ----------------------------------------------------- + STS-3c (150Mbit/s) STM-1 (150Mbit/s) + STS-12c (620Mbit/s) STM-4 AU-4-4c (620Mbit/s) + STS-48c (2.4Gbit/s) STM-16 AU-4-16c (2.4Gbit/s) + STS-192c (9.6Gbit/s) STM-64 AU-4-64c (9.6Gbit/s) + + Note that AU-4-4c and AU-4-16c are not generally available in SDH + networks at present. + + With virtual concatenation the following additional WAN bandwidth + links would be available for PPP over SONET/SDH: + + SONET + + VT-1.5-nv (n=1-64) 1.6Mbit/s-102Mbit/s + STS-1-nv (n=1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/s + STS-3c-nv (n=1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/s + + SDH + + VC-12-nv (n=1-64) 2.2Mbit/s-139Mbit/s + VC-3-nv (n=1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/s + VC-4-nv (n=1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/s + + Higher levels of virtual concatenation are possible, but not + necessarily useful. Lower levels of virtual concatenation are + defined in the telecommunications standards for use if needed. + + Table 1 and Table 2, respectively depict the SONET/SDH transport + structures that are currently available to carry various popular bit + rates. Each table contains three columns. The first column shows + the bit rates of the service to be transported. + + The next column contains two values: + + a) the logical signals that are currently available to provide such + transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency of the given + transport signal without the use of virtual concatenation. + + Likewise, the final column also contains two values: + + a) the logical signals that are currently available to provide such + transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency of the given + transport signal with the use of virtual concatenation. + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + + Note, that Table 1, contains SONET transport signals with the + following effective payload capacity: VT-1.5 SPE = 1.600 Mbit/s, + STS-1 SPE = 49.536 Mbit/s, STS-3c SPE = 149.760 Mbit/s, STS-12c SPE = + 599.040 Mbit/s, STS-48c SPE = 2,396.160 Mbit/s, and STS-192c SPE = + 9,584.640 Mbit/s. + + Table 1. SONET Virtual Concatenation + + Bit rate Without With + -------------------------------------------- + + 10Mbit/s STS-1 (20%) VT-1.5-7v (89%) + 100Mbit/s STS-3c (67%) STS-1-2v (100%) + 200Mbit/s STS-12c(33%) STS-1-4v (100%) + 1Gbit/s STS-48c(42%) STS-3c-7v (95%) + + Similarly, Table 2, contains SDH transport signals with the following + effective payload capacity: VC-12 = 2.176 Mbit/s, VC-3 = 48.960 + Mbit/s, VC-4 = 149.760 Mbit/s, VC-4-4c = 599.040 Mbit/s, VC-4-16c = + 2,396.160 Mbit/s, and VC-4-64c = 9,584.640 Mbit/s. + + Table 2. SDH Virtual Concatenation + + Bit rate Without With + ------------------------------------------- + + 10Mbit/s VC-3 (20%) VC-12-5v (92%) + 100Mbit/s VC-4 (67%) VC-3-2v (100%) + 200Mbit/s VC-4-4c(33%) VC-3-4v (100%) + 1Gbit/s VC-4-16c(42%) VC-4-7v (95%) + +3. Physical Layer Requirements + + There are two minor modifications to the physical layer requirements + as defined in RFC 2615 when virtually concatenated SPEs/VCs are used + to provide transport for PPP over SONET/SDH. + + First, the path signal label (C2 byte) value for SONET/SDH STS-1/VC-3 + and above SPE/VCs is required to be the same for all constituent + channels. This is in contrast to the use of a single C2 byte for PPP + transport over contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs. The + values used for the C2 bytes should be in accordance with RFC 2615. + For SONET VT-1.5/2/6 and SDH VC-11/12/2 the path signal label (V5 + byte bits 5-7) is required to be the same for all constituent + channels per ITU-T G.707 [7] and ANSI T1.105.02 [6]. + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + + Second, for SONET/SDH STS-1/VC-3 and above SPE/VCs the multi-frame + indicator (H4) byte will be unused for transport links utilizing + contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs. When the concatenation + scheme is virtual as opposed to contiguous, the H4 byte must be + populated as per ITU-T G.707 or T1.105.02. Similarly, for virtual + concatenation based on SONET VT-1.5/2/6 and SDH VC-11/12/2 channels + bit 2 of the path overhead K4 byte will be set to the value indicated + per ITU-T G.707 [7] and ANSI T1.105.02 [6]. + +4. Standards Status + + ITU-T (SG13/SG15), ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 have developed a global + standard for SONET/SDH High Order and Low Order payload Virtual + Concatenation. This standard is defined in the following documents: + + ITU-T G.803 Architecture of transport networks based on the + synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) + + ITU-T G.707 Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital + Hierarchy (SDH) + + ITU-T G.783 Characteristics of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) + Equipment Functional Blocks + + ANSI T1.105 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic + Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates and Formats + + ANSI T1.105.02 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Payload + Mappings + + ETSI EN 300 417-9-1 Transmission and Multiplexing (TM) Generic + requirements of transport functionality of equipment Part 9: + Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) concatenated path layer + functions. Subpart 1: Requirements + + Work in ITU-T, ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 has ensured global + standards alignment. + + With the completion of a standard for SONET/SDH SPE/VC virtual + concatenation it is appropriate to document the use of this standard + for PPP transport over SONET/SDH, which is the intent of this + document. + +5. Security Considerations + + The security discussion in RFC 2615 also applies to this document. + No new security features have been explicitly introduced or removed + compared to RFC 2615. + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + +6. References + + [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC + 1661, July 1994. + + [2] Simpson, W., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662, July + 1994. + + [3] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH RFC 2615, June + 1999. + + [4] Bellcore Publication GR-253-Core "Synchronous Optical Network + (SONET) Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria" January + 1999 + + [5] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical + Network (SONET) - Basic Description including Multiplex + Structure, Rates and Formats" ANSI T1.105-1995 + + [6] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical + Network (SONET) - Payload Mappings" ANSI T1.105.02-1998 + + [7] ITU-T Recommendation G.707 "Network Node Interface for the + Synchronous Digital Hierarchy" 1996 + +7. Acknowledgements + + We would like to acknowledge Huub van Helvoort, Maarten Vissers + (Lucent Technologies), Paul Langner (Lucent Microelectronics), Trevor + Wilson (Nortel Networks), Mark Carson (Nortel Networks) and James + McKee (Nortel Networks) for their contribution to the development of + virtual concatenation of SONET/SDH payloads. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + +8. Authors' Addresses + + Nevin Jones + Agere Systems + Broadband IC Systems Architecture + Rm. 7E-321 + 600 Mountain Avenue + Murray Hill, NJ 07974 + + EMail: nrjones@agere.com + + + Chris Murton + Nortel Networks Harlow Laboratories + London Road, Harlow, + Essex, CM17 9NA UK + + EMail: murton@nortelnetworks.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002 + + +9. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 8] + -- cgit v1.2.3