Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type

[Rajan Rao <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

The new encoding has implications in routing(new ISCDs).  I think we can minimize the impact using the two fields mentioned in my email below.   To be specific,

For the case highlighted in the slide,  the Encoding is AMP when
Signal Type = ODU1  in traffic spec
Length Field  = 8 in  Label 

Thanks
Rajan
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:54 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); Daniele Ceccarelli
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type

John,

See below.

On 3/13/2013 6:40 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> Lou,
> 
>  
> 
> I must have been asleep but I don’t remember hearing of an issue.

No problem, looked like a few others had some trouble getting moving this AM too.

>  It
> was my understanding that AMP and GMP both use G.709 encoding in the 
> data plane, so why would we want to make what appears to be an 
> artificial distinction?

This was covered on slide 3 of Danielle's presentation.  He/They can provide additional details/justification.

Lou

> 
>  
> 
> Irrespectively Yours,
> 
>  
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:27 PM
> *To:* John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Rajan Rao
> *Cc:* CCAMP ([e-mail]); Daniele Ceccarelli
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
> 
>  
> 
> John,
> 
> Do you have an alternate proposal on how to address the issue, or do 
> you just see an issue?
> 
> (If the former, the onus will fall on you to provide one. If the 
> latter, it'll fall to Sergio And Danielle to recap the presented 
> issue.)
> 
> Lou
> 
>  
> 
> On March 13, 2013 6:16:46 PM John E Drake wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>      
> 
>     I don’t think this is a good idea and I don’t see any reason for it.
> 
>      
> 
>     Irrespectively Yours,
> 
>      
> 
>     John
> 
>      
> 
>     *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:53 AM
>     *To:* Rajan Rao
>     *Cc:* CCAMP ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>     *Subject:* [CCAMP] R: G.709 signaling - encoding Type
> 
>      
> 
>     Rao,
> 
>      
> 
>     it is a proposal: so you should read:  “encoding type can 
> indicate…
> 
>      
> 
>     Regards
> 
>     Sergio
> 
>      
> 
>     *Belotti Sergio-  System Architect*
> 
>     *ALCATE-LUCENT  Optics Division*
> 
>     via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy
> 
>     phone [phone]
> 
>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
>     *Da:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *Per conto di *Rajan Rao
>     *Inviato:* mercoledì 13 marzo 2013 14.40
>     *A:* CCAMP ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>     *Oggetto:* [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
> 
>      
> 
>     Daniele,
> 
>      
> 
>     The presentation slide#3 says:  “encoding type indicates AMP or
>     GMP”.   I don’t think this is the case.  We use  G.709 ODUk as
>     encoding type.  There is no explicit indication of AMP or GMP
>     there.  Are you proposing to change this?
> 
>      
> 
>     Note that AMP/GMP can be inferred from Signal Type in traffic param
>     & Length field ( = 8) in the label.
> 
>      
> 
>     Thanks
>     Rajan
>