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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Sergio,
	Thank you for clarifying the requirement. I believe you are describing
an issue that is a little different than what I understood from some
earlier discussions.  Perhaps others were also in the same situation.

As I now understand it, the issue that is being raised is one related to
ODUj LSPs that use an ODUk H-LSP as a hop, there is a need at all hops,
including at *transit nodes*, to configure the mapping method (AMP, GMP)
used from the ODUj onto the ODUk H-LSP.  This of course means that the
mapping function needs to be set on a hop by hop basis for the ODUj LSP.
 (I though an issue on and ODUk H-LSP was being raised.)

Or in other words there is an issue of per-hop resource
allocation/management.

Per the presented slide and Table 7-10 of G.709, the mapping method/type
is unique per combination of {ODUj, ODUk, TSG}.  Obviously any hop
signaling an ODUj LSP will know and unambiguously be able to identify
(in signaling) the ODUj and ODUk.  This just leaves the TSG.

Section 6.1 of the signalling draft already has text covering TSG as
part of the per-hop label. So TSG is also already being signaled
unambiguously.

It looks to me that all that is needed is a sentence or two stating that
the mapping type is unambiguously based on the above.

Please let me know if I missed something.

Lou

On 3/15/2013 6:05 AM, BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) wrote:
> 
> The requirement comes form discussion had last week related to tolerance .
> We discovered from ITU experts, there is an attribute related to the adaptation function in case of multiplexing of ODUj into ODUk, 
> 
>  oduTypeAndRate that configures the mapping method (AMP, GMP).
> 
> Now , since obviously equipment cannot know whether configuration is provided via management or control plane , conclusion was that control plane should have an equivalent of this attribute in order to be able to configure the right adaptation.
> 
> On the other hand this discussion is not new , since many time we discussed the opportunity to have dedicated object/fields to explicit adaptation information , at the moment not present in GMPLS.
> 
> This is a summery of requirement.
> 
> Thanks
> Sergio
> 
> Belotti Sergio-  System Architect
> ALCATE-LUCENT  Optics Division
> via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy
> phone [phone]
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Inviato: giovedì 14 marzo 2013 19.58
> A: Daniele Ceccarelli
> Cc: Rajan Rao; John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP ([e-mail])
> Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
> 
> Daniele, (Sergio?)
> 
> Can you summarize the data plane behavior/requirement that is the basis
> for the change?  i.e., provide the reason why *any* change is required.
> 
> Once we all understand the data plane requirements/constraints, we can
> better decide which (hopefully existing) GMPLS mechanism is best suited
> to support the requirement.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou
> 
> On 3/14/2013 2:41 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>> Using the encoding was one of the possible suggestions.
>>
>> Indeed it has impacts on the routing and it might be worth avoiding it, but another solution is preferrable wrt relying on the Label Length (which might change for several reasons). I would prefer not to put a requirement on the Label lenght only because it is needed to retrieve the adaptation type.
>>
>> Other proposals are welcome. I had a chat with John this morning and he was proposing the utilization of a new field (even a single bit). That could be a viale option for me. Since we're removing the Tolerance from the traffic parameters we're going to have room for a new field.
>>
>> BR
>> Daniele
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>> Sent: mercoledì 13 marzo 2013 19.51
>>> To: Lou Berger; John E Drake
>>> Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP ([e-mail]); Daniele 
>>> Ceccarelli
>>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>