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

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Mon, 03 February 2014 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EFA1A0079 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 23:59:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.736
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QppVB535RLXd for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 23:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7FE1A006B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 23:59:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8664; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391414387; x=1392623987; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=EYKjD1pqDXE2A58Ou3kJgTeoyVLoUOuw07MjYt1edl8=; b=GY1/e98z0QJXn4dzSlWWOI9DRrtt9TEy0YuMPq7vu2i2AjmsYpl8Nx6e kaAdmLiGtw9ruK1txfxE5I7/5xxmxCWKPMn9tvR9bj03yhByvu2pK2U+e Q17rrdqWgeMONMnTB87Wlo1iC493sINlFLg2WFdGwu6Tw/afjLqESZKLG A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAMdL71KtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V4MBuxUYaxZ0giUBAQEEAQEBIAQNOgsMBgEIDgMDAQEBAQICERIDAgQlCxQBCAgCBAENBRuHag2rY6EaF4EpjH4KBwEdCBAbBwQCBIJlgUkEmCqBMpBvgW+BPoFoCRci
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,771,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="17468656"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2014 07:59:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s137xkc3015078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:59:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.71]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 01:59:46 -0600
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Oscar González de Dios <ogondio@tid.es>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>, Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
Thread-Index: AQHPHo1BydwR2IGn0keMwppSynySeZqfWVOAgAAFhICAAAU/AIAAAKAAgAQPSgD//8wDgA==
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 07:59:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CF14B62B.9456B%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D7D7AB44C06A2440B716F1F1F5E70AE53FB0FC88@SV-EXDB-PROD2.infinera.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.132]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4D655D13D20F5C418013EAD87DED4A15@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 07:59:54 -0000

Hi:

I agree and don't see any strong reason for why CCAMP should not go with
m=16. However, at the moment we can say that usage of only x number of
bits is define (to match current DP definition in ITU-T).

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "Iftekhar com>" <IHussain@infinera.com>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:07 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Oscar de Dios
<ogondio@tid.es>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>,
"ramon.casellas@cttc.es" <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
Switching Routers

>This is a very interesting discussion.  I believe extending the value of
>m to 16-bit makes sense. BTW, that is why in our label definition we had
>proposed a 16-bit for the m to begin with.
>
>Regarding "why not", all along there has been recurring theme of not
>getting ahead of ITU definitions. So I am afraid, we can be selective.
>Having said this, if the collective wisdom is to go ahead - that is fine
>with me. But then let us look at all aspects and solutions (routing,
>signaling, etc.). 
>
>Regarding the "entire spectrum slot is feasible", I agree. So let us
>first start with discussing/capturing this requirement/use case in the
>framework document?
>
>Best regards,
>Iftekhar
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08 AM
>To: Oscar González de Dios; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon Casellas
>Cc: CCAMP
>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
>Switching Routers
>
>>> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other
>>>question would be "why not"?
>
>+1
>
>We still have 16 bits reserved...
>
>BR
>Daniele
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Oscar
>> González de Dios
>> Sent: venerdì 31 gennaio 2014 17:06
>> To: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon Casellas
>> Cc: CCAMP
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
>> Label Switching Routers
>> 
>> Hi, my 2 cents...
>> 
>>   With the encoding, you should be able to describe a frequency slot
>> as big as the whole spectrum available in the band. If 8 bits (that
>> give a width of
>> 1593,75 GHz using the granularity of 6,25) is not enough, then it MUST
>> be extended to a bigger value. The flexi-grid framework allows a
>> hierarchy of frequency slots, so the ³entire spectrum² slot is
>> feasible and in line with current ITU recommendations. We are not
>> saying a single signal uses that amount of spectrum.
>> 
>> 
>>  Oscar
>> 
>> 
>> El 31/01/14 16:47, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)"
>> <giomarti@cisco.com>
>> escribió:
>> 
>> >
>> >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
>> >GM> me
>> >that¹s better to allocate few more bits know than looking for them in
>> >the future. Btw, to answer Loa doubts, there¹s 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
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >CCAMP mailing list
>> >CCAMP@ietf.org
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
>> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
>> en el enlace situado más abajo.
>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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