Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

["Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

 

Hi Greg, CCAMPers, 

 

Regarding point (2), using one regen type per OTUk (k in [[1..4]]), and
2 type of laser module per reach makes already 8 type of oeo properties.
Adding slightly different hw types (i.e old board with old modulation
and a more recent with DP-QPSK) makes an easy 10 types for a big node.

 

Without going into product families this sounded reasonable (for
instance a typical product would indicate supports for 10 and 40g with
different modulation, so lets say 2 sub-board type, which makes 6 regen
type); The introduction of OTU4 and later OTU5 will increase the types
of regenerator supported.

 

The size expansion is indeed related to the number of regenerator type,
resource blocks contain connectivity, oeo-feature and how the blocks are
grouped.

 

The other point would indeed clarify the document, the setup of resource
pools/blocks is shown in Figure 1, a resource pool aggregating  the
connectivity for several resource blocks.

Best regards.

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of ext Greg Bernstein
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:20 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification
fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

 

Hi Pierre and draft authors, can you provide:
(1) Diagrams of the example switches particularly with respect to the
structure of the resource pools/blocks.
(2) Explanation of why so many different types (not number) of
regenerators in an optical node. You site 5 different types for a small
node and 10 for a large node. Can you point to a product family?  I
would think 0-1 types of regenerators for a small node and at maybe 2
for a large node or nodes that deal with long haul and metro types
modulations.  
(3) Can you provide the example encodings such as done in the appendix
of the encoding document so we can understand where the expansion is
taking place.

It seems that the size expansions is directly related to the number of
regenerator types, but hard to tell from this document.  Are there any
other WSON interested parties that have a need for so many regenerator
types?

Cheers

Greg B.

On 6/10/2011 7:19 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote: 

Hi Ccampers,
 
During Prague meeting I was asked to provide a draft detailing the
solution we were presenting then concerning OSPF-TE extensions for
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (see point 10 of ccamp minutes).
Julien, Giovanni, Cyril and I have tackled this work of providing a
complete description of the solution with commonalities and deltas from
the existing solution held in the following drafts:
  - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11
  - draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-04
  - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-00
  - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11
  - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-04
 
Feedback from the working group is welcome.
 
To trigger this feedback, this draft holds inside section 5 a numerical
study on the amount of static and dynamic information to be flooded.
This study was conducted on various typical WSON nodes and compares the
size of the LSAs between the two solutions.
 
Regards,
 
- Pierre
 
 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp






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