As per Relevance of the word transport, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group N.
Request for Comments: 3255 Agere
Category: Standards Track C.
Nortel
April 2002
Extending Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) over Synchronous
NETwork/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) with
concatenation, high order and low order
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved
This document describes an extension to the mapping of Point-to-
Protocol (PPP) into Synchronous Optical NETwork/Synchronous
Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) to include the use of SONET/SDH SPE/VC
concatenation and the use of both high order and low order payloads
Table of
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.
Current implementations of PPP over SONET/SDH are required to
transport structures from the relatively limited number
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]
the following
SONET
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64
Note that VC-4-4c and above are not widely supported in SDH
at present
The use of virtual concatenation means that the right size SONET/
bandwidth can be selected for PPP links
For the convenience of the reader, the equivalent terms are
below
SONET
---------------------------------------------
SPE
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/64
STS-12c/48c/192c-SPE VC-4-4c/16c/64
STS-12c/48c/192c payload C-4-4c/16c/64
This table is an extended version of the equivalent table in RFC 2615
[3]. Additional information on the above terms can be found
Bellcore GR-253-CORE [4], ANSI T1.105 [5], ANSI T1.105.02 [6]
ITU-T G.707 [7].
2. Rate
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
-----------------------------------------------------
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
networks at present
With virtual concatenation the following additional WAN
links would be available for PPP over SONET/SDH
VT-1.5-nv (n=1-64) 1.6Mbit/s-102Mbit/
STS-1-nv (n=1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/
STS-3c-nv (n=1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/
VC-12-nv (n=1-64) 2.2Mbit/s-139Mbit/
VC-3-nv (n=1-64) 49Mbit/s-3.1Gbit/
VC-4-nv (n=1-64) 150Mbit/s-10Gbit/
Higher levels of virtual concatenation are possible, but
necessarily useful. Lower levels of virtual concatenation
defined in the telecommunications standards for use if needed
Table 1 and Table 2, respectively depict the SONET/SDH
structures that are currently available to carry various popular
rates. Each table contains three columns. The first column
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
transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency of the
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
transport and, b) in parenthesis, the percent efficiency of the
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
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
Bit rate Without
--------------------------------------------
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
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
Bit rate Without
-------------------------------------------
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
There are two minor modifications to the physical layer
as defined in RFC 2615 when virtually concatenated SPEs/VCs are
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
channels. This is in contrast to the use of a single C2 byte for
transport over contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs.
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 (V
byte bits 5-7) is required to be the same for all
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-
indicator (H4) byte will be unused for transport links
contiguously concatenated SONET/SDH SPE/VCs. When the
scheme is virtual as opposed to contiguous, the H4 byte must
populated as per ITU-T G.707 or T1.105.02. Similarly, for
concatenation based on SONET VT-1.5/2/6 and SDH VC-11/12/2
bit 2 of the path overhead K4 byte will be set to the value
per ITU-T G.707 [7] and ANSI T1.105.02 [6].
4. Standards
ITU-T (SG13/SG15), ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 have developed a
standard for SONET/SDH High Order and Low Order payload
Concatenation. This standard is defined in the following documents
ITU-T G.803 Architecture of transport networks based on
synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH
ITU-T G.707 Network Node Interface for the Synchronous
Hierarchy (SDH
ITU-T G.783 Characteristics of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH
Equipment Functional
ANSI T1.105 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) -
Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates and
ANSI T1.105.02 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) -
ETSI EN 300 417-9-1 Transmission and Multiplexing (TM)
requirements of transport functionality of equipment Part 9:
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) concatenated path
functions. Subpart 1:
Work in ITU-T, ANSI T1X1 and ETSI TM1/WP3 has ensured
standards alignment
With the completion of a standard for SONET/SDH SPE/VC
concatenation it is appropriate to document the use of this
for PPP transport over SONET/SDH, which is the intent of
document
5. Security
The security discussion in RFC 2615 also applies to this document
No new security features have been explicitly introduced or
compared to RFC 2615.
Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002
6.
[1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
1661, July 1994.
[2] Simpson, W., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662,
1994.
[3] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH RFC 2615,
1999.
[4] Bellcore Publication GR-253-Core "Synchronous Optical
(SONET) Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria"
1999
[5] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous
Network (SONET) - Basic Description including
Structure, Rates and Formats" ANSI T1.105-1995
[6] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous
Network (SONET) - Payload Mappings" ANSI T1.105.02-1998
[7] ITU-T Recommendation G.707 "Network Node Interface for
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy" 1996
7.
We would like to acknowledge Huub van Helvoort, Maarten
(Lucent Technologies), Paul Langner (Lucent Microelectronics),
Wilson (Nortel Networks), Mark Carson (Nortel Networks) and
McKee (Nortel Networks) for their contribution to the development
virtual concatenation of SONET/SDH payloads
Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002
8. Authors'
Nevin
Agere
Broadband IC Systems
Rm. 7E-321
600 Mountain
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
EMail: nrjones@agere.
Chris
Nortel Networks Harlow
London Road, Harlow
Essex, CM17 9NA
EMail: murton@nortelnetworks.
Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3255 Extending PPP over SONET/SDH April 2002
9. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by
Internet Society
Jones & Murton Standards Track [Page 8]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
