Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC28D21F9A6D; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mhKogBPK8u1A; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D867F21F9FC3; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76D5120899; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c213-89-137-101.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.137.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06C55120890; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5245CED2.5020400@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:30:42 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
References: <522DBBBC.7050103@joelhalpern.com> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F482463FDB4@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <5245C274.6090707@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5245C274.6090707@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, CCAMP WG <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] R: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:30:49 -0000

Lou, thanks for stepping in.
With your explanation I can live with the LSP text as it is.

I look forward to further conversation on the other point.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/27/13 1:37 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Joel/Authors,
>
> I thought I might jump in on two points:
>
>
> On 9/26/2013 4:50 AM, BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) wrote:
>> Hello Joel,
>>
>> thanks for your comments.
>> Below in line our reply, marked "authors".
>>
>
> ...
>
>>       Given that this document is about mapping to G.709, it is unclear what is intended by the usage of "LSP".  My guess is that it is intended to mean Label Switch Paths set up by GMPLS to carry OTU/UDU elements.
>> It should be stated explicitly.
>>
>> Authors> We can specify this as you suggest even if we considered not necessary to specify the usage of LSP in relation to data plane specific. Encoding type should cope with this issue.
>>
>
> Joel,
>
> I suspect that the usage of LSP in the absence of the MPLS data plane is
> what's causing confusion here.  Is this correct?
>
> If so, I think GMPLS referencing controlled data paths (circuits) by the
> common name of Label Switched Path (LSP) is sufficiently established
> that this document doesn't need to revisit it.  In any case, the
> document already provides context:
>
>     GMPLS routing and signaling, as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC5307],
>     [RFC3473] and [RFC4328], provides the mechanisms for basic GMPLS
>     control of OTN networks based on the 2001 revision of the G.709
>     specification.
> and
>     Background information and a framework for the GMPLS protocol
>     extensions need to support [G.709-2012] is provided in [OTN-FWK].
>
> [OTN-FWK] has the often repeated concept:
>
>     GMPLS extends Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to encompass time
>     division multiplexing (TDM) networks (e.g., Synchronous Optical
>     NETwork (SONET)/ Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), Plesiochronous
>     Digital Hierarchy (PDH), and G.709 sub-lambda), lambda switching
>     optical networks, and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber
>     to outgoing port or fiber).  The GMPLS architecture is provided in
>     [RFC3945],
>
> If this doesn't cover the comment, can you elaborate on what you want
> explicitly stated?
>
>> ...
>>
>>       Section 8 on Maximum LSP Bandwdith seems to be objecting to too much information leading to a "waste of bits".  While possibly of interest to the WG, that does not seem to fit a gap analysis.
>>       Similarly, section 10 on Priority Support reads as implementation advice rather than a gap needing protocol changes.
>>
>> Authors> The basic scope of the draft is to underline gaps, and even if what described in Ch.8 and 10, do not prevent routing to work , it is suggested here an requirement for optimization based on OTN requirements (e.g. no need to advertise fixed ODU container Max LSP BW since implicit in the signal type.)
>>
>
> Authors,
> 	I completely agree with Joel on this point, furthermore sections 10 and
> 8 overlap.  One approach to address his point would be to simply drop
> both sections.  An alternative is try to rephrase them to address Joel's
> points.  I've taken a pass at the latter below, but won't object if the
> authors prefer the former.
>
> Here's a suggested wording change if you choose to keep the sections:
> OLD:
>     8. Maximum LSP Bandwidth
>
>     Maximum LSP bandwidth is currently advertised in the common part of
>     the ISCD and advertised per priority, while in OTN networks it is
>     only required for ODUflex advertising.  This leads to a significant
>     waste of bits inside each LSA.
> and
>
> NEW
> 8. Maximum LSP Bandwidth
>
>     Maximum LSP bandwidth is currently advertised per priority in the
>     common part of the ISCD.  Section 5 reviews some of the implications
>     of advertising OTN network information using  ISCDs, and
>     identifies the need for a more optimized solution.  While strictly
>     not required, such an optimization effort should also consider the
>     optimization of the per priority maximum LSP bandwidth advertisement
>     of both fixed and variable ODU types.
>
> OLD
>     10. Priority Support
>
>     [RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage.
>     All of them have to be advertised independently on the number of
>     priorities supported by the implementation.  Considering that the
>     advertisement of all the different supported signal types will
>     originate large LSAs, it is advised to advertise only the information
>     related to the really supported priorities.
> NEW
>     10. Priority Support
>
>     [RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage.
>     As defined, each is advertised independent of the number of
>     priorities supported by a network.  As is the case in Section 8,
>     addressing any inefficiency with such advertisements is not required
>     to support OTN networks.  But any such inefficiency should also be
>     considered as part of the optimization effort identified in Section
>     5.
>
> Also please replace "Bw" with "Bandwidth" in the document.
>
> Lou
>