Re: [CCAMP] Ask for comments

[Yabin Ye <[e-mail]>]

Dear Acee,

 

Thanks for your comments and sorry for my late reply due to some urgent
issues.

 

Please see my reply inline.

 

Thanks,

 

Yabin

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Yabin Ye
Cc: [e-mail]; Siamak Azodolmolky; [e-mail]; Michèle Wilmet
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Ask for comments

 

Hi Yabin,

 

I have a couple comments:

 

       - First, this document extends OSPF TE rather than the OSPF protocol
itself.

.

>>>>>Yes, you are right. This document is for OSPF-TE extensions.

 

       - Second, the document refers to PLI TE LSAs as if they were separate
LSAs. However, I believe these are just additional TE LSAs as described in
RFC 3630.

>>>>>>  The motivation for a new LSA is that type 10 LSA has an area
flooding scope. However, not all the PLI information has the same flooding
scope, for example, the PMD is not suitable for relatively small area
network, i.e. metro network, it only makes sense in regional or long haul
network. From the networking point of view, taking the flooding scope into
account when distributing PLI information will reduce the generated traffic.
>From the network resource provider point of view, it gives the flexibility
and capability to the choice of flooding scope, in order to apply local
policy. From the software implementation point of view, it reduces the need
of big memory to buffer more PLI information. Therefore hierarchical PLI is
proposed.

 

 

       - Similarly, the document refers to the top-level Link and Node TLVs
as if they are new PLI TLVs. However, these are referenced with the same
code points as the existing Link and Node TLVs. They will need new types if
you want to redefine them with different semantics.

       - Same for the Remote Interface IP Address Sub-TLV and Local
Interface IP Address Sub-TLV. These are not new Sub-TLVs and probably don't
need to be even if new top-level PLI TLVs are required.

>>>>>>---Yes, I agree. We could use the existing code points defined in
[RFC3630] and [draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr] for top-level link TLV and Node
TLV. However other sub-TLVs related to impairment information are new and
the main focus of this draft.

 

>From a high-level, it seems the only new TLVs required are the ones for PLI
and this information can be just advertised with the existing TE
information. However, due to the volume and frequency of change, you may
want separate LSAs.

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

On Jul 26, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Yabin Ye wrote:

 

Dear All,

 

We have submitted a draft entitled “OSPF Extensions in Support of
Impairment Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSONs)”.

 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agraz-ccamp-wson-impairment-ospf-00

 

This document suggests to extend the OSPF-TE protocols by including the
physical impairments in order to support Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) and Path Computation Element (PCE)    control of
Impairment Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment in Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSONs).

 

Due to urgent issues, we are not able to attend the meeting. Attached please
find the presentation, and kindly let us know if you have any comments.

 

Background: This draft is the output of EU FP7 funded DICONET project. More
details of this project can be found at http://www.diconet.eu/homepage.asp

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Yabin Ye

 

 

*********************************************************

Yabin Ye 叶亚斌

European Research Center

Huawei Technologies

Riesstr. 25

80992 Munich

Germany

Tel: [phone]

Cell: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

www.huawei.com<http://www.huawei.com/>

*********************************************************

 

<WSON impairment ospf V1.ppt><ATT00001..txt>