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

On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:27, Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> wrote:

> El 31/01/2014 15:03, Loa Andersson escribió:
>> Adrian,
>> 
>> I do not have any problem with that, unless there is a intended use of
>> the reserved field.
>> 
> Loa, Adrian, all,
> 
> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other question would be "why not"?
> If, as Adrian mentions, we constrain the its use as defined in G.694.1 while leaving room for growth, at least the encoding would be more likely be reused (as opposed to the WSON -> SSON).
> 

GM> is not mere reuse but future protocol compatibility.  Sounds to me that’s better to allocate few more bits know than looking for them in the future. Btw, to answer Loa doubts, there’s no idea about how using reserved bits right now. 

Cheers
G

> For what is worth, individual drafts that are considering extending RSVP-TE for signaling media channels would also be affected. The underlying idea is to propose new types for the sender template and the flowspec in the flow descriptor to accommodate for the requested and allocated slot width. Right now, only the "m" parameter is encoded with the corresponding padding/reserved bytes.
> 
> Regards,
> Ramon
> 
> PS: much like Adrian's draft, the label encoding proposed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ccamp-flexible-grid-label-00 also took into account the fact that a reduced number of bits would suffice to cover G.694.1
> 
>> On 2014-01-31 19:44, Adrian Farrel 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. 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp