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

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jonas, 

  In the label object, we already have a field name CS value. According to ITU G.694.1, SWG is 2 times CS value ( currently CS=6.25GHz). So if I understand correctly, these two values are related. So unless we expect a change/update supported by the device in the near future, not sure whether such a field is needed.

Cheers,
Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jonas M?rtensson
Sent: 2014年2月6日 16:37
To: [e-mail]; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Hi Adrian,

I'm not talking about defining new CS values. I'm proposing adding a separate SWG (slot width granularity) field to allow for granularities finer than 12.5 GHz in the future. Maybe this is unnecessarily future-proof and we can deal with it if/when it becomes necessary. Just wanted to bring it up for discussion.

Cheers,
Jonas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: den 5 februari 2014 23:40
> To: Jonas Mårtensson; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel King';
> 'CCAMP'
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> Switching Routers
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This seems like future-proofing for the sake of future proofing.
> 
> I think that the proposed CS value gives us 6.25 (recall, we already had
> 12.5).
> 
> If 3.125 or some "odd" value like 17.937 becomes a requirement in the future
> we
> could define a new CS value to mean "CS is encoded in bytes 6 and 7 of the
> label" and then utilise the two currently reserved bytes. That is how we might
> do it, but I would be less than enthusiastic about making this provision now
> on
> the theory that we might need it one day.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 05 February 2014 09:18
> > To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); [e-mail]; 'Daniel
> King';
> > 'CCAMP'
> > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> Switching
> > Routers
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I don't know if this has been proposed and discussed already but why not
> also
> > add a field indicating slot width granularity (similar to the C.S. field)
> where today
> > the only defined value would correspond to 12.5 GHz. This would accommodate
> a
> > potentially finer granularity in the future (when technologies improve as
> Gabriele
> > points out).
> >
> > /Jonas
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gabriele Maria
> > > Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> > > Sent: den 31 januari 2014 16:47
> > > To: [e-mail]; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> > > Switching Routers
> > >
> > > Hi Adrian,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification.
> > > If We talk about the the slot with granularity specified by G.694.1
> > > To be 12.5GHz, I agree that we have to wait any ITU feedback.
> > > On the other hand I don't see any constraint of Spectrum Width
> > > Size in G.694.1.  So there is no specification/limitation to m value.
> > >
> > > In this sense I'd agree with Ramon: why not extend it.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Gabriele
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gabriele Galimberti
> > > Technical Leader
> > > Cisco Photonics Srl
> > >
> > >
> > > Via Philips, 12
> > > 20900 - Monza (MI)
> > > Italy
> > > www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> > >
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Phone :[phone]
> > > Mobile :[phone]
> > > Fax :[phone]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/31/14 12:44 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi Gabriele,
> > > >
> > > >IIRC this topic has come up in various discussions.
> > > >I think the discussion ran aground when we tried to understand what ITU-T
> > > >SG15
> > > >Q6 data plane capabilities this increased value of "m" modelled.
> > > >
> > > >I believe that we could easily increase the size of the m field, but as I
> > > >understand the status of the Q6 work, we would still need to constrain
> > > >its use
> > > >as defined in G.694.1. Maybe that is the best compromise: it gives us
> > > >scope for
> > > >future expansion, but it makes (for now) the value strictly limited
> > > >according to
> > > >the current definition of the data plane we are controlling.
> > > >
> > > >Thoughts?
> > > >Adrian
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gabriele
> > Maria
> > > >> Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> > > >> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:35
> > > >> To: Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
> > > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> > > >Switching
> > > >> Routers
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Daniel
> > > >>
> > > >> I have a change request on the label:
> > > >>
> > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> > > >>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >>    |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier      |               n
> |
> > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >>    |       m     |                     Reserved                    |
> > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to extend the m value range to 16 bits to have the possibility
> > > >>to
> > > >> Allocate the whole C-band spectrum if needed.
> > > >> With 8 bits we can allocate only 60% of it.
> > > >> Another reason is that when new technologies will be available the
> > > >> Slot Width Granularity may increase (to 6.25GHz or better).
> > > >>
> > > >> So the proposed change is:
> > > >>
> > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> > > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >> |Grid | C.S. |    Identifier    |                n              |
> > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >> |                m              |            Reserved           |
> > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  m field = 16 bits.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Gabriele
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Gabriele Galimberti
> > > >> Technical Leader
> > > >> Cisco Photonics Srl
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Via Philips, 12
> > > >> 20900 - Monza (MI)
> > > >> Italy
> > > >> www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> > > >>
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> Phone :[phone]
> > > >> Mobile :[phone]
> > > >> Fax :[phone]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 1/29/14 6:06 PM, "Daniel King" <[e-mail]> 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
> > > >> >[e-mail]
> > > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> CCAMP mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp