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

Hi Xian,

sorry for the late reply
On 08 Feb 2014, at 11:36, Zhangxian (Xian) <zhang.xian@huawei.com> 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… 

Cheers
G

> Regards,
> Xian  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
> Sent: 2014年1月31日 23:55
> To: Daniel King
> Cc: CCAMP
> 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 <daniel@olddog.co.uk> 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@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp