Generalized MPLS - An Overview

Daniela Vieira Cunha, Graca Bressan

Department of Electrical Engineering - POL1
Escola Politkcnica, University of SZo Paulo (USP)
S5o Paulo - Brazil
Emails: (dcunha, gbressanielarc.usp.br

Abstract: CMPLS, being developed by IETF and OIF, has
been proposed to address traflc engineering to n variety of
nenuoi-king technology, and tu sene in R variety of network
signaling layers. exrending capabilities beyond those networks
that are only packet-based. GMPLS is an extension of MPLS
rind it provides a control plane for devices that swirch in rime,
packet, wavelength, and fiber doiliains. This coilinion control
pluiie promises to sirnpliJy network operatiori and
mariagenient by automating end-to-erid provisioning of
coiinections, nianaging network resources, and providing
QuS. One of the main architecture enhancements proposed by
GMPLS is the cornplete separation of the control and duta
planes, allowing high performance, iiitellipn networking
ujliile sbiiplifiing networks by combining transport and
rmrltiservice switching into a single layered rietwork.
The industry believes that optical networking is a key
solution to keep up with the growth. Substantial interest has
been focused on optical networking, which is being developed
to increase network capacity and scalability. Thus,
telecommunications equipment designers face a huge task in
converging the optical-networking and IP worlds to answer
carrier demands for greater efficiency and improved cost-
effectiveness.
However, to realize IP and optical networks greatest
potential benefits, IP services in particular will need to be
more intelligent, flexible and scalable. That will allow
operators and providers to offer IP services beyond the less-
profitable commodity category, where they reside today [ I].

Keywords: GMPLS, control plane, optical networks

I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a massive increase in data
traffic driven primarily by the explosive growth of the lnlernet
as well as the propagation of VPNs (Virtual Private
Networks), pushing the bandwidth requirements for IP
(Internet Protocol) data to limits that demand the
reconstruction of the entire network architecture, and malung
unprecedented changes to the existing transport infrastructure.
The amount of data traffic worldwide has already
surpassed voice traffic some years ago: for that reason,
convergence of the IP and optical layers is expected to be the
theine in the next phase of Internet expansion. At the same
time, there is increasingly strong demand from customers to
keep the cost of networking down.
The need to carry more traffic, combined with the need to
minimize the cost of camying this traffic results in a situation
where SPs (Service Providers) need solutions that enable them
to carry a large volume of traffic in the inost cost-efficient
manner.
b c d
Figure 1. Evolution toward the use of GMPLS
Typically, there are four layers in the current data network
architecture, as shown in Figure la: IP, ATM (Asynchronous
Transfer Mode). SONETISDH (Synchronous Optical
NetworWSynchronous Digital Network), and optical
networWDWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing).
This multilayer architecture suffers from the bottleneck effect
where any layer can limit the scalability of the entire network.
It is a150 fairly cost-ineffective. Though ATM has the
advantages of providing QoS (Quality of Service)
functionality. it is very inefficient in massive data
transportation because of its huge overhead. As a

~ --___ ______
71h lnternalional Conference on Telecommunications. ConTEL 2003
ISBN:953-184-052-0,June 11-13,2003, Zagreb. Croalia 435

consequence, changes are forming for the next generation
carrier networks to bypass both ATM and SONETISDH
layers, thus building a two-layer network (Figure Id) using IP
w d opricaVDWDM layers with GMPLS (Generalized MPLS)
[31
GMPLS is not ordinary MPLS (Multiprotocol Label
Switching), it is the extension of the MPLS paradigm to
optical networks, supported by IETF (Internet Engineering
Task Force) and OIF (Optical Internetworking Forum), that
addresses the needs of the optical control plane.
Initially, a brief overview of MPLS and its evolution to
GMPLS is given in section 2 and 3 respectively. Next, in
section 4, a summary of GMPLS characteristics, protocols,
labels. hierarchy, model and outstanding issues are explored.
At the end, some conclusions are presented.
11. MPLS BACKGROUND
MPLS extended the suite of 1P protocols to expedite the
forwarding scheme used by IP routers. Routers have used
complex and time-consuming route lookups and address
matchiiig schemes to deterniine the next hop for a received
packet, primarily by examining the destination address in the
header of the packet. MPLS has greatly simplified this
operation by basing the forwarding decision on a simple label
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. Simplified MPLS Forwarding
For each specific area service a table of FEC (Forwarding
Equivalence Class) is created to represent a group of flows
with the same TE (Traffic Engineering) requirements. A
specific label is then bound to an FEC. At the ingress of an
MPLS network, incoming IP packets are examined and
assigned a label by a LER (Label Edge Router). The labeled
packets are then forwarded along an LSP (Label Switched
Path), where each LSR (Label Switching Router) makes a
switching decision based on the packet's label field. An LSR
does not need to examine the IP headers of the packets to find
436
Douicln V i d r n Grrthn. Grrrcn Bresmn:
the next hop. An LSR simply strips off the existing label and
applies a new label for the next hop.
Another major feature of MPL,S is its ability to place 1P
traffic on a defined path through the network. This capability
was not previously possible with IF' traffic. In this way. MPLS
provides bandwidth guarantees and other differentiated service
features for a specific user application.
Signaling is done using a LDP (Label Distribution
Protocol) that runs on every MPLS node. There is a number of
different LDPs. The two most popular are RSVP-TE
(Resource Reservation Protocol) and CR-LDP (Constrained-
based Routing LDP). These protocols provide real-time
coordination of the current network topology, including
attributes of each link.
MPLS extensions to routing protocols, OSPF (Open
Shortest Path First) and IS-IS (Intermediate System to
Intermediate System), allow nodes to not only exchange
information about network topology, but also resource
information and even policy information. This information is
used to compute the optimal patlis for the LSPs through the
network and allow complex TE decisions to be made
automatically when selecting routes through the network.
111. MPLS EVOLUTION TO GMPLS
The MPLS researches proved that a label could map to a
color in a spectrum and that MPLS packets could be linked
directly to an optical network. They called this process MPXS
(Multiprotocol Lambda Switching). As research continued, it
was found that in order to have a truly dynamic network, a
method for totally controlling a network intelligeiit optical
networking was born.
Since MPLS offered network switching, provisioning
could be accomplished automatically in MPLS; this feature
could be carried onto the telecom networks and switches could
be provisioned using MPLS swilch as 3 core. However, since
MPLS was specific to IP networks, the protocols would have
to he modified in order to talk to the telecom equipment. The
generalizing of the MPLS protocol led to the birth of GMPLS.
The IETF has extended MPLS suite of protocols to include
devices that switch in time, wavelength, and space domains
via GMPLS. Thus GMPLS nodss can have links with one or
more of the following switching capabilities: FSC (Fiber
Switch Capable). LSC (Lambda Switch Capable), TSC (TDM
- Time Division Multiplexing - Switch Capable), and PSC
(Packet Switch Capable).
The basic challenge for an all-encompassing control
protocol is the establishment. maintenance, and management
of TE paths to allow the data plane to efficiently trensport user
data from the source to the de:;tination. A user flow starting
from its source is likely to travel several network spans.
ConTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0
 Generalized MPLS An Overview

A. MPLS AND GMPLS DIFFERENCES IV. GMPLS

MPLS and GMPLS might he familiar terms to many GMPLS was developed with the goal of creating a single
people. However, some people may still confuse the GMPLS suite of protocols that would he applicable to all service and
control plane with the MPLS data plane. Although GMPLS is transport traffic. As a result, it provides the same enhanced
an extension of MPLS, its usage i n the control is different forwarding schemes for TDM, WDM (Wavelength Division
from MPLS operation in the data plane. Table I below Multiplexing), and physical fiber as it does for an IP/ATM/FR
presents some of the main differences between these two (Frame Relay) flow. The support for the additional types of
approaches. switching has driven GMPLS to extend certain base functions
of traditional MPLS and, in some cases, to add functionality.
One of the main differences between the original MPLS
These changes and additions impact basic LSP properties, how
and GMPLS is their functional focus. The original MPLS
labels are requested and communicated, the unidirectional
mainly focuses on the data plane. On the other hand, GMPLS
nature of LSPs, how errors are propagated, and information
focuses on the control plane that performs connection provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress LSRs.
management for the data plane for both PSC interfaces and
nowpacket switched interfaces, which include TSC, LSC, and It is also defined a common control plane, which simplifies
FSC. operations and management, reducing the cost of operations.
The new intelligence that GMPLS brings to the control plane
Another difference between MPLS and GMPLS is that the also helps with network management. With it, many of the
original MPLS requires the LSP to be set up between routers advanced intelligence resource-engineering concepts
at both ends, while GMPLS extends the concept of LSP set up developed for IP networks, such as constrained-based routing
beyond routers. The LSP in GMPLS can be set up between and TE, are finding their way into the optical arena. In
any similar types of LSRs at both ends. addition, the wider universal control plane within GMPLS will
allow providers and operators to create a much broader range
of dynamic services.
Generalized MPLS is a natural extension of MPLS to the
optical signaled model and uses an open platform for the
hlPLS GMPLS dynamic interconnection of multiple client layers, including
Fucus on d m plane Focus on control plane IP. Its control architecture provides a simple and mature set of
protocols.
PSC PSC,FSC,LSC,TSC
GMPLS will also address two of the key tasks i n network
Label - 32-bil number Lnbel - a&ilrory lzngih operations and growth provisioning and restoration IS]
BGP-4 wilh mullipmlocol and label BGP being extended furlher to Generalized MPLS requires modifications to current
carrying extensions to suppon VPNs svppon optical VPNs
sigilaling and routing protocols. It has also triggered the
V;iriour extensions IO LDPICR-LDP More work undeway lo expand thr development of a new protocol known as LMP (Link
atid RSVP-TElo suppon services capabilities Management Protocol). GMPLS discovers its neighbors.
mch as DiflServ with TE distributes link information, and provides topology
LDP uscs TCP,RSVP Hello LMP has been introduced 10 mtomate management. path management, link protection and recovery.
messages intruduced. Io improve discovery. control channel GMPLS allows for link management, topology discovery,
reliability maintenance, and f m l t nwnagemcnt routing, signaling and survivability across IP and optical
networks, centralized control, automatic provisioning, load
balancing, provisioning bandwidth service, BOD (bandwidth
on demand), and OVPN (Optical VF").
As mentioned in Table 1, GMPLS allows the different
types of interfaces to work together by nesting one LSP inside A. Generalized Label
another. This capability allows the system to scale better by
forming a forwarding hierarchy, also known as label Traditional MPLS is designed to carry L3 (Layer 3) IP
hierarchy. traffic using established IP-based paths and associating these
paths with arbitrarily assigned labels. A label is a short, fixed
Furthermore, there are functions specific to optical length, locally significant identifier that is used to identify a
networks that GMPLS covers that are not in the original FEC. These labels can be configured explicitly by a network
MPLS, such as suggested label, label set and bi-directional administrator, or be dynamically assigned by means of a
LSP setup. protocol such as LDP or RSVP.

ConTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0 431

 GMPLS generalizes MPLS in that it defines labels for
switching types of LI (Layer l ) , L2 (Layer 21, or L3 traffic.
GMPLS nodes can have links with one or more switching
capabilities (FSC, LSC, TSC, PSC) thus, to deal with the
widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domain,
several new forms of label are required. These new forms of
label are collectively referred to as G-label (Generalized
Label).
G-label extends the traditional label by allowing the
representation of not only labels which travel in-band with
associated data packets, but also labels which identify time-
slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed positions, as
GMPLS extends MPLS from supporting PSC interfaces and
switching to include support of non-packet switching. In the
following, it is summarized the characteristics of G-label in
GMPLS signaling specification:
. Values used in G-label field only have significance
between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to convert
the received value into a value that has local significance;
. A G-label does not identify the class to which the
label belongs. This is implicit in the multiplexing capabilities
is a "waveband I D and a pair of numbers (channels IDS)
indicating the lower and upper wavelengths of the selected
waveband. In waveband switching, the switching interface can
recognize and switch individual waveband within the link
(without distinguishing lambda, channels, or packets).
Time-slot Labels
Where the bandwidth of an optical fiber is subdivided into
time slots by the TDM, an optical switch may satisfy a
particular data flow request by allocating one or more time
slots to that flow. The exact details of TDM label
representation depend upon the TDM hierarchy in use. for
example SONET or SDH.
For all the types of GMPLS described, the label value
directly implies the bandwidth that is available for the
corresponding data flow, which means bandwidth allocation.
This is quite different from the case for non-generalized
labels, and is a fundamental reflection of the nature of optical
networks.

of the link on which the label is used;

. A G-label only carries a single level of label, i.e., it is
non-hierarchical. When multiple levels of label a e required,
B. GMPLS Hierarchy
GMPLS allows the different types of interfaces to work
together by nesting one G-LSP inside another. This capability
.
each LSP must be established separately:
Each G-label object carries a variable length label
parameters.
allows the system to scale better by building a forwarding
hierarchy (Figure 3). Nesting of G-LSPs between interface
types increase flexibility in service definition and makes it
The information transmitted over a GMPLS network must possible for service providers operating a GMPLS network to

...
he associated with a label type. There are five different labels deliver both bundled and unbundled services.

.
the information can he associated to. Bellow it is a list ofthem
and their characteristics:
. MPLS label
mm
This label represents a generic MPLS label, a FR label, or
an ATM label.
. Fiber Labels
A link between LSRs may consist of a bundle of optical
fibers. LSRs may choose to allocate a whole fiber to a data
tlow and so simply need to agree on which fiber (within the
bundle) to use. In this case, the label value is the number of
the selected fiber within the bundle.
. Wavelength Labels
Where the bandwidth of an optical fiber is subdivided by
WDM, an optical LSR may choose to allocate a single
wavelength to a requested data flow. In this case, the label
value is the wavelength of the selected wavelength.
-
. Waveband Labels
...

Figure 3. Forwarding hierarchy of Nested LSPs.

If consecutive wavelengths are grouped together into a
waveband, so as all to he switched in the same way, the label

438 ConTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0

 Generalized M P L 5 An Overview
At the top of the hierarchy are FSC interfaces. Underneath
are LSC interfaces, followed by TSC interfaces, and finally
PSC interfaces. This way, an LSP that starts and ends on a
PSC interface can be nested (together with other LSPs) into an
LSP that starts and ends on a TSC interface. This LSP, in turn,
can be nested into an LSP that starts and ends on an LSC
interface, which in turn can be nested into an LSP that starts
and ends on an FSC interface.
As shown in Figure 4, the flows that have MPLS shim
header are transferred through a packet LSP that originates
between two packet switches. The flows are aggregated in
TDM switch such as SONET and SDH. The aggregated flows
with SONETISDH label are multiplexed inside a TDM time
slot LSP between two TDM switches. Similarly, the
multiplexed flows with new lambda label can be transferred
inside a lambda LSP that originates between two lambda
switches. Finally, the flows with new fiber label can be
transferred inside a fiber LSP that originates between two fiber
switches. Reversely, these flows must he recovered in lower
switching interface using label information.
LamMa LSP
Tlmcrlof Label
TOM Time4at LSP
Figure 4. GMPLS Hierarchy
PSC Packet Switch Capable
~
PSC interface can switch the received data on a packet-by-
packet basis. This interface recognizes packetkell boundaries
and can forward data based on the content of the packetkell
header. The label carried in the shim header is used in this
interface. All kinds of label used in PSC interface are defined
as MPLS label.
Examples of such an interface include interfaces on routers
that forward data based on the content of the IP header, ATM
switches, FR switches that have been enabled with an MPLS
CooTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0
control plane. interfaces on routers that forward data based on
the content of the MPLS shim header.
TSC - TDM Switch Capable
TSC interface forwards data based on the data's time slot
in a repeating cycle. This interface can multiplex or
demultiplex channels within a frame such as SDH payload.
Examples of such an interface are interfaces on
SONET/SDH cross-connect, ADM (AddlDrop Multiplexer),
Terminal Multiplexer (TM), and DXC (Digital Cross-
Connect).
LSC Lambda Switch Capable
~
LSC interface forwards data based on the wavelength on
which the data is received. Therefore, this interface can
recognize and switch individual lambdas within the interface.
Example on such an interface include interfaces on a PXC
(Photonic Cross-connect), OADM (Optical ADM), OXC
(Optical Cross-connect) switch that can operate at the level of
an individual wavelength.
FSC - Fiber Switch Capable
FSC interface forward data based on a position of the data
in the real world physical spaces. Therefore. this interface can
switch the entire contents to another interface (without
distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets). Fiber switching
system switches at the granularity of an entire interface, and
cannot exact individual lambdas within the interface. This
interface uses porclfiber label.
Examples of such an interface are interfaces on PXC or
OXC that opente only at the level of a single or multiple
fibers, an automated optical patch panel, or a protection
switch.
GMPLS first defines several new forms to label the
generalized label objects. These objects include the
generalized label request, the generalized label, the explicit
label control, and the protection flag. Any of the objects might
be removed or modified and new objects might also be added
in the future
However, since an optical link may consist of a bundle of
fibers, and the switches may support more than one kind of
multiplexing on those fibers, it is necessary for the upstream
LSR to specify the LSP encoding type that it wants for the
data flow being setup; this encoding type then determines
whether the agreed label will be timeslot or wavelength based,
and of what kind. The choice of how to switch for any
439

particular LSP is made when the LSP is setup. This increases
the flexibility of how the network resources can be used.
C. GMPLS Protocols
GMPLS requires modifications to current signaling and
routing protocols to provide control and management
internetworking between photonic switches and
opticalDWDM transmission systems. In addition to the
routing and signaling protocols, GMPLS makes use of the
LMP it defines for link management.
Keep Alive i Link Verification
Figure 5. Relationship between Protocols
Figure 5 shows the interrelation between the routing
and signaling protocols, and also the LMP.
Signaling Enhancements
The signaling protocols are responsible for all the
connection management actions and, are used to setup,
modify, remove and retrieve the TE LSP information. The
GMPLS signaling extends certain base functions of the RSVP-
TE and CR-LDP signaling and, in some cases, adds
functionality. These changes and additions impact basic LSP
properties, how labels are requested and communicated, the
unidirectional nature of LSPs, how errors are propagated, and
information provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress.
It is defined the following new building blocks on the top
of MPLS-TE:
* A new generic label request format;
. Labels for TSC, LSC and FSC interfaces (G-labels);
440
Dnnieln Vieira Cunhn, Grncn Brersnn:
Waveband switching support;
Bi-directional LSP establishment with contention
resolution;
Rapid failure notification extensions;
Protection information currently focusing on link
protection;
Explicit routing with explicit label control for a fine
degree of control;
Specific traffic parameters per technology;
LSP administrative status handling.
Routing Enhancements
The GMPLS routing extends certain base functions of the
OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE routing and, in some cases, adds
functionality. They are used for the auto-discovery of network
topology, address the routing capability for signaling
messages, and advertise resource availability (e.g., bandwidth
or protection type).
The major enhancements are as follows:
. Support for Unnumbered Links
An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An
LSR at each end of an unnumbered link assigns a 32-bit
identifier to that link. Support for unnumbered links in routing
includes carrying information about the identifiers of that link.
Specifically, when an LSR advertises an unnumbered TE link,
the advertisement carries both the local and the remote
identifiers of the link.
' Link Protection Type. LFT
LPT represents the protection capability that exists for
each link of an LSP. It is desirable to carry this information so
that it may be used by the path computation algorithm to set
up LSPs with appropriate protection characteristics. Protection
information also indicates if the LSP is a primary or a
secondary LSP. A secondary LSP is a backup to a primary
LSP.
Six link protection types are currently defined as
individual flags and can be comhined:
.
-- Extra Traffic
Unprotected
Shared .
Dedicated 1:l
Dedicated 1+1
Enhanced
- Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information
A set of links may constitute a SRLG if they share a
resource whose failure may affect all links in the set. A link
ConTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0
 Generalized MPLS An Overview
may belong to multiple SRLGs. Thus SRLG Information
describes a list of SRLGs that the link belongs to.
If an LSR is required to have multiple diversely routed
LSPs to another LSR, the path computation should attempt to
route the paths so that they do not have any links in common,
and such that the path SRLGs are disjoint.
. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
In the context of GMPLS, interfaces may have different
switching capabilities. Interfaces at each end of a link need not
to have the same switching capabilities. The same happens to
interfaces on the same node.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor describes
switching capability, of an interface. For bi-directional links,
the switching capabilities of an interface are defined to be the
same either direction.
LMP Link Management Protocol
~
To enable communication between nodes for routing,
signaling, and link management, control channels must be
established between a node pair.
Link management is a collection of useful procedures
between adjacent nodes that provide local services such as
control channel management, link connectivity verification,
link property correlation, and fault management. The LMP has
been defined to fulfill these operations.
Briefly, LMP provides for the following:
* Control Channel Management
LMP control channel management is used to establish and
maintain control channels between nodes. Control channels
exist independently of TE links, and can be used to exchange
control-plane information such as signaling, routing, and link
management information. Each control channel individually
negotiates its control channel parameters and maintains
connectivity using a fast Hello protocol.
Link Property Correlation
A link property correlation exchange is defined. The
exchange is used to aggregate multiple data links into bundled
link and exchange, correlate, or change TE link parameters.
The link property correlation exchange may de done at any
time a link is up and not in the Verification process. It allows
adding component links to a link bundle, changing a links
protection mechanism, change port identifiers, or change
component identifiers in a bundle.
ConTEL 2003, ISBN: 953-184-0524
. Link Connectivity Verification
Link connectivity verification is an optimal procedure that
may be used to verify the physical connectivity of data links as
well as to exchange the link identifiers that are used in the
GMPLS signaling. The use of this procedure is negotiated as
pan of the configuration exchange that takes place during the
negotiation phase of the Hello protocol. This procedure should
be done initially when a data link is first established
* Fault Management
Fault management is an important requirement from the
operational point of view. It includes usually: fault detection,
fault localization and fault notification. When a failure occurs
and is detected, an operator needs to know exactly where it
happened and a source node may need to be notified in order
to take some actions. Note that fault localization can also be
used to support some specific local protectionhestoration
mechanisms.
D. GMPLS Issues
For a control plane to be used for all of the networks types
mentioned, the following issues must be considered:
Data forwarding is not limited to that of merely packet
forwarding. The general solution must be able to retain the
simplicity of forwarding using a label for a variety of devices
that switch in time or wavelength, or space;
. Not every type of network is capable of looking into the
-
contents ofthe received data, and of extracting a label;
Scalability is an important issue in designing large
networks to accommodate changes in the network quickly and
gracefully. The resources that must be managed in a TSC or
optical network are expected to be much larger in scope than
in a packet-based network. For optical networks it is expected
that hundreds to thousands of wavelengths (lambdas) will be
transporting user data on hundreds of fibers;
. Configuring the switching fabric in electronic or optical
switches may be a time-consuming process. For instance, in a
DXC that is capable of switching tens of thousands of digital
signal (DS) identifying the connection between the
inputloutput ports could be time-consuming as fewer ports
become available to accommodate incoming user traffic.
Latency in setting up an LSP within these types of networks
could have a cumulative delaying effect in setting up an end-
to-end flow;
. Networks have the inherent ability to perform a fast
switchover from a failed path to a working one. GMPLS’
control plane must be able to accommodate this and other
levels of protection granularity. It also needs to provide
441
restoration of failed paths via static (pre-allocated) or dynamic handle large volumes of traffic io a cost-effective way, speed
reroute, depending on the required COS (Class of Service). up the services, and solve the bottleneck effect. GMPLS can
reduce operation and managemem cost without affecting the
Table 2 presents a summary of the issues in the control
QoS of the entire network. It can also raise revenue
plane approach.
opportunities and increase the network performance.
Furthermore, it has the function:$ of restoration and flexible
protection to provide network survivability.
Table 2. Summary of Issues in a Control Plane
Appro ach GMPLS will be an integral part of deploying the next
generation of data and optical networks. It provides the
lSSW GMPLS Protocol Notes
Solution
necessary bridges between the IP and photonic layers to allow
for interoperable and scalable parallel growth in the IP and
Switching G~labei Signaling photonic dimensions. By streamlining support for
Divcraity end on the same multiplexing and switching in a hierarchical fashion and
type of device
combining the flexible intelligence of MPLS TE, the business
Forwarding Logical or value of optical switching GMPLS will prove essential in any
Diversity physical routing io tmvei solution that aims to enable large volumes of traffic in a cost-
repantion of out-of-band
controi and daw, efficient manner for service providers.

I
Configuration Suggested label Signaling Expedite LSP
setup
REFERENCES

Jy_II
[ I ] Banerjee, A.. Drake, J., Lang, J., Tumer, B., Awduche, D.,
Scalabilily Forwarding Routing Lower link Berger, L., Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., (2001).
adjacency database size

I Signaling "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching: An

Bandwidth Overview of Signaling Enhancements and Recovery
ScaIBbility Techniques". IEEE Communications Magazine, July.
Hierarchical
Link bundling

1- [21 Choi, I., Kang, M., Lee, G.. Um, J., Lee, Y . , Kim, J.,
(.2002), "Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding",

1
Reliability Protection and LMP
restomtion SONET bi- Internet Draft, draft-choi-~:mpls-label-framework-OO.txt,
Routing directional line-
SRLF for path awitchednng
October, expired date April 2003.
diversity ( B U R ) and [31 Chokesatean, P.. Yaemnoi, T., Sukcharoenkana, W..
UPSR
Zhang, Y., (2001). "Will GMPLS replace ATM and
Efficienl use of Hierarchical Signaling save on exccss SONETISDH in the next few years?%

I
network
rcwurces Routing
use of scarce w
addresses 141 International Engineering Consortium, "Generalized
U"""miJ:ered
links Multiprotocol Label Switching", www.iec.org.
151 Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., (2002), "Routing Extensions,in
Support of Generalized MPLS", Internet Draft. draft-ietf-
ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, August, expired date
February 2003.
V. CONCLUSIONS
[61 Mannie, E., (20021, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
GMPLS provides a whole new way of optical networking. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet Draft, draft-
It not only provides the possibility of multi-layer, multi- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.tnt. August, expired date
vendor control plane interoperahility, but also enables new February 2003.
types of services such as BODand OVPN. In addition, carriers
can enjoy automated TE and single-step connection [7] GMPLS Resource Center, ~20021,
provisioning, saving their valuable time, and avoiding errors www.polarisnetworks.cond);mpls.
with a lower cost. The control plane also supports new
[SI Saha, D., (2202) Toverging Optical and IP: Can GMPLS
restoration schemes to provide additional protection for
Take Control?", Communication Systems Design,
various network topologies that traditional transport systems
cannot support efficiently. February.

Service providers can integrate the signaling protocol in

[91 White Rock Networks. (2002) "GMPLS: A New Way of
Optical Networking", January.
GMPLS to establish high capacity infrastructures for
supporting fast provision of connection services, and also

442 ConTEL 2003,ISBN: 953-184-052-0