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

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:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 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/>
> 
> ggalimbe@cisco.com
> Phone :+39 039 2091462
> Mobile :+39 335 7481947
> Fax :+39 039 2092049
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/29/14 6:06 PM, "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