RE: Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt

[Young Lee <[e-mail]>]

Hi Snigdho, 

 

See my response in-line. Thanks. 

 

Young

 

  _____  

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Bardalai, Snigdho
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Greg Bernstein
Cc: Ccamp (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt

 

Hi Greg,

 

Please see my responses.

 

Thanks,

Snigdho

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
Greg Bernstein
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:27 AM
To: Bardalai, Snigdho
Cc: Ccamp (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt

Hi Snigdho! I've got some questions on your comments and I'll take a stab at
some answers...

Regards

Greg

Bardalai, Snigdho wrote: 

Hi Greg et al, 

I have a few comments on this draft proposal. 

1. I believe basic WSON signaling extensions should be separated from
signaling based RWA solutions. The reason is the scope of each problem is
different.

There are three basic requirements in the signaling draft (a)
characterization of WSON signals, (b) bi-directional distributed wavelength
assignment for WSON signals, and (c) an option for specifying the
distributed wavelength assignment method to be used at each node. Items (a)
and (c) were from Young and my original draft and (b) was from Sugang,
Hiroki and Dan King's draft which the chairs mentioned we should merge with
ours. Is item (c) bothering you? Or the combination of (a) with (b) and (c).
We wanted the WG's opinion on item (c).
[Bardalai, Snigdho] May I ask what is a "WSON signal" ? Somewhere below you
mention a "wireless" application, what application is this, what std. is it
based on? It seems we are assuming something about the data-plane here. If
that is not clearly defined how can we discuss about characterization? On
the other hand I can completely understand what (b) and (c) is refering to.

 

Hence, I believe the scope of (a) is different from (b) and (c). (b) and (c)
are addressing some specific issues of distributed (signaling based) RWA.

 

[Young] (b) actually does not deal with "distributed" wavelength
assignment." Perhaps, we have to clarify some of the wordings used in the
current draft to avoid misunderstanding. The main focus of (b) is how to
permit simultaneous bi-directional wavelength assignment. It defines a
signalling mechanism for same wavelength bidirectional lightpath to reduce
setup times and lowers blocking probability. The exact wavelength to use
hop-by-hop can be assigned by the PCE or by the NE. 

 

As for (c), we are asking the WG as Greg said before if we should retain it
or not --- This is an optional feature for sure. 

 

 

 

The other concern is compliance to such a document. Typically there will be
a choice between distributed (signaling based) or centralized (PCE/routing
based) RWA, but (a) would be required to be supported for both RWA
approaches. Hence I would consider (a) to be a basic requirement. I believe
that we are mixing too many things here.

2. I believe we have not yet established what level of client layer
characterization should be included in an OCH layer LSP. For that matter the
definition of "Lightpath" is not yet completed and agreed.

--> In the e-mail I sent concerning the WSON Framework document I brought up
the issue of "lightpath" definition.  In a more detailed reading of G.709
and G.872 I got the impression that OCh is a bit too restrictive. In G.709
it is defined from 3R to 3R.  Now we want to include wavelength converters
even if we are not currently dealing with impairments and most wavelength
converters are regenerators (2R or 3R) with tunable lasers. G.872 doesn't
consider the wavelength of the optical signal part of its characteristic
information hence an OCh can go through a wavelength converter and they give
an example in Appendix I.  
[Bardalai, Snigdho] Thanks for the clarification. 



3. Basic WSON signaling should be in alignment with G.872 and G.709
concepts. 

Agree. Note that RFC4328 covers the standard G.709 digital hierarchy. For
signals not in the G.709 digital hierarchy the concepts and terminology of
G.709/G.872 still apply (with some caveats): the OCh (optical channel), OMS
(optical multiplex section), OTS (optical transmission section), and
Physical Media Layer (the optical fiber itself). It seems that G.709 and
G.872 have slightly different notions of what an OCh is (G.709 seeming more
restrictive).
Now from the practical side of things there are standards at the ITU-T that
actually talk about characterizing the signals like G.696.1. To determine
receiver compatibility we can run into trouble with a higher layer signal
designation such as STM-256 since different modulation (RZ, NRZ) maybe used.
Hence the ITU-T started defining signal classes by (a) modulation, (b)
modulation parameters (if any), (c) bit rate, and (d) FEC.




4. If optical impairments is not in the current scope why do we need to
encode "analog bit rate", will the client layer signal type (i.e. SONET/SDH
or ODUk etc.) not be sufficient for your purposes?

--> Do you mean "analog bandwidth"? Although G.872 are aimed at transport of
digital signals, I recall a request from someone to include some minimum
ability to deal with "analog signals" for an application where wireless
signals were put over the fiber without much processing.
If you meant "bit rate" for a digital signal compatibility with the receiver
and any OEO based wavelength converters...
[Bardalai, Snigdho] I meant "bit rate". I don't think bit-rate, mod and FEC
is sufficient for OEO based digital signal compatibility, which means
information such as encoding type, signal type etc. is necessary. Given that
I cannot understand why we need to include the "analog bit rate", because
based on signal type information it is possible to derive the bit-rate.
Also, without completely understanding the wireless application it is not
possible to say if we do require the analog bandwidth, so I will defer my
comment on that till I understand what you are refering to.



Thanks, 
Snigdho 





-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]