Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

"Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <> Mon, 03 March 2014 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1083C1A02C0 for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:08:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBo8FdZMYDct for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F111A02C8 for <>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:08:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4390; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393866494; x=1395076094; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=2R8FOkfHop4KsuId8VyT6dc+R23GU+BbrLWtBDo8iFk=; b=j9cb7M7CashdpVPjMr5dNTqC+d3+AjSrnC7pgL9yXBqxykyWOoX57WGG oTxHrmUom/xPFHaSmh5pWDiPNAZomn5TmGEvePmpIN96ZfrtQ83lf+PPS z2rCAuqmmchuN4E1U+f3+jVQxZePmG3r9Q4fU0wdZPeORVOJM5KdA9bxc I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,578,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="307723390"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2014 17:07:57 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s23H7ve7023578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:07:57 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:07:57 -0600
From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <>
To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
Thread-Index: AQHPNwMewspIqQFKWE2N4nbmEsABuw==
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:07:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <005901cf1d14$69d2d550$3d787ff0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:08:26 -0000

Hi Xian,

sorry for the late reply
On 08 Feb 2014, at 11:36, Zhangxian (Xian) <> wrote:

> Hi, Giovanni, 
>  When we resize a LSP, the label value needs to change for sure in transport networks. An example would be OTN and captured in Section 7 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12. The procedure described/cited there should also be applicable to resizing a LSP in flexi-grid as well, if I understand correctly.

GM> yep that’s a good starting point

> The difference is, in OTN the data plane can support hitless adjustment of the bandwidth, thus the need of explanation of interaction of both planes; not sure it is the case for flexi grid at the moment.

GM> IMHO yes.

> So, I wonder if change a bandwidth of a flex-lsp means taking the steps of tearing down the old one and establishing a new one, thus already supported by RFC3209 from control plane perspective? 

GM> this was a bare minimum option

>  I think we are discussing some advanced issues and currently won't be needed in solutions drafts. If needed, a note may be added somewhere to the framework draft. Thoughts?

GM> I would say yes… 


> Regards,
> Xian  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
> Sent: 2014年1月31日 23:55
> To: Daniel King
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
> Hi Dan,
> a comment from my side. Nothing precluding the draft to progress but having the m value in the label make me thinking.
> I know there was lots of discussion in the past and likely the result is somewhat described section 4.2 however the use case I have in mind is when an established flex-lsp (hence a w/ flexgrid labels)  needs to be enlarged/shrinked. This operation implies a label value change. 
> Now, does this consideration needs room in this draft /within framework /nowhere? I don’t have strong opinion just throwing a doubt on the table.
> Cheers
> G
> On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:06, Daniel King <> wrote:
>> Hi CCAMP'rs,
>> The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the only
>> changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section as per
>> RFC6982.
>> It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further
>> technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been picked up
>> by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work. 
>> We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the working
>> group:
>> - Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft? 
>> - Are you happy with the label format described? 
>> - What do you think the next steps should be for this draft?
>> Thanks,
>> Dan (for the authors)
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list