Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sun, 27 January 2013 22:29 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 779DA21F8887 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:29:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k103scdQS8qH for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D91421F8770 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15109 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jan 2013 22:29:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2013 22:29:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=QO3WETQHZMcho8qqZ3uHPxE4nes41nsHVKVAYgZ2ulA=; b=Foadjbq5Y7Yh+Ci02bs6lY5z8VspyBbzO53467bw9CaOAzcldppA5u0H6rm8OCPGzZ44Ogm9XI9rzL/2LmSLnB0NUP+K/C24mgbeV4NFlM318YB8qId+orP6NRESbZMu;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:55869 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Tzaj7-0008LK-G8; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:29:25 -0700
Message-ID: <5105AA4F.2050304@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:29:35 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <50733BED.8090304@labn.net> <5084A8C0.1010607@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83583E820@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50D31CB7.9000704@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835842D0F@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50E5FD4A.1080207@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835855DB5@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50F58A35.7040806@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835856301@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50F837FB.2010806@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF8358571AD@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50FED643.6020708@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835857D6A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50FFFCD6.5010004@labn.net> <5DF87403A81B0C43AF3EB1626511B2923C32F253@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B70F3A9@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B70F3A9@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
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: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:29:49 -0000
Agreed. Just a heads-up to all, immediately following the conclusion of the LC discussion on the signaling document. Given the technical changes, there will be a second last call conducted. Lou On 1/27/2013 12:47 PM, John E Drake wrote: > Good catch. > > Irrespectively Yours, > > John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Gruman, Fred >> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:28 AM >> To: Lou Berger; Fatai Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli >> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- >> signaling-g709v3-04 >> >> Hi Lou, Fatai, Daniele, >> >> I understand the latest change to the way bandwidth is signaled for >> ODUflex(GFP), i.e., signaling the number of tributary slots N instead >> of the bandwidth rate in bps. I believe that this simplifies the >> signaling and interoperability so I'm in agreement with this change. >> >> However, it seems we are now inconsistent between how we represent >> bandwidth in routing and signaling for ODUflex(GFP). Routing >> advertises the bandwidth using a floating point representation of >> bandwidth, while signaling is using the number of tributary slots. It >> seems the same benefits would be obtained by advertising the max LSP >> bandwidth and unreserved bandwidth for ODUflex(GFP) in terms of the >> number of tributary slots. >> >> Fred >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Lou Berger >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:08 AM >> To: Fatai Zhang >> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- >> signaling-g709v3-04 >> >> Fatai, >> >> On 1/23/2013 6:49 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>> Hi Lou, >>> >>> For ODUflex(CBR), the formula is from [G.709-2012] and it has been >>> discussed before, so please trust that there is no opportunity for >>> misinterpretation. (Note that there are two cases, one is >>> ODUflex(CBR) and another one is ODUflex(GFP)). >>> >>> In addtion, ODUflex cannot be concatenated by [G.709-2012]. >> >> Thanks for confirming my understanding. This raises the question of if >> the new traffic should just apply to ODUFlex? Correct me if I'm wrong, >> but I believe the [RFC4328] is sufficient in all other cases. This may >> also make it easier for early implementations of the draft as then they >> can limit code changes from the (-03) rev to only ODUflex LSPs. >> >> Just to be clear, I'm really just *asking* about this. As I said >> before, I'm open on specifics... >> >> Any thoughts/comments? Authors? Implementors? >> >> Thanks, >> Lou >> >> >>> I will issue a new version tomorrow to capture all your comments. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Fatai >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:11 AM >>> To: Fatai Zhang >>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>> >>> Fatai, >>> >>> On 1/20/2013 9:43 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>> Hi Lou, >>>> >>>> You said: >>>>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right? Wat's the value >> of this vs just carrying N? >>>> >>>> [Fatai] The original way (in version 04&05) is putting (N* Nominal >>>> Rate) in "Bit_Rate" field for ODUflex(GFP), the value is that we can >>>> generalize to just use one single "Bit_Rate" field to carry IEEE >>>> float number for both cases, it seems that you don't agree on this >>>> value, :-) >>> >>> I've seen differences in calculated floating point values from >>> different implementations, so I just want to ensure that such cases >> are avoided. >>> I'm open to specific solutions and certainly will deffer on the >>> specifics assuming there is no opportunity for >>> misinterpretation/interop issues. I don't think the original passed >> this threshold, i.e.,: >>> >>> N = Ceiling of >>> >>> ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate >> tolerance) >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> --- >>> ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance) >>> >>>> . Therefore, I (was) am saying that I am going to accept your >>>> suggestion to carry N for ODUflex(GFP). We are discussing where to >>>> put N for ODUflex(GFP). >>>> >>> >>>> You said: >>>>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's better to >> have simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this case). >>>> >>>> [Fatai] OK, I will add a new field (to occupy the reserved bits) to >> carry N. >>> >>> As you see fit. >>> >>> Just to clarify my understanding, ODUflex and Virtual concatenation >>> can never be combined for the same signal type/level, right? >> (Although >>> an ODUflex client signal could be carried over a virtual concatenated >>> ODUk). Is this correct or did I miss something in G709? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lou >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> Fatai >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:42 AM >>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/15/2013 10:16 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>> >>>>> To avoid misunderstanding, I would like to clarify more on the >>>>> following point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is better to have consistent format and the same meaning of >>>>>>>>> one >>>> field for both ODUflex(CBR) and GFP. This is why we have section 5.1 >>>> &5.2 to describe the complex stuff. >>>>>>>> I actually wasn't suggesting that N be carried in the bit rate >> field. >>>>>>>> The bit rate field can either be set as described or to zero >>>>>>>> (i.e., ignored). At the time, I was thinking about carrying N >> in >>>>>>>> the reserved field. But perhaps the right place is MT, if my >>>>>>>> understanding is right (would always be 1 otherwise). I'm open >> to either... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Fatai] Why not just use "bit rate"field to carry "N"because "N" >>>>>>> implies bit rate? I am OK if you like to use a new filed (like >>>>>>> "TS >>>>>>> Number") to occupy the reserved field even though that I prefer >>>>>>> the original approach (ie., use "bit rate"field to carry "N"). >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you proposing dropping carrying bit rates represented as an >>>>>> IEEE floating point and just carrying N for ODUflex? This seems >>>>>> workable to me, but we should ensure that there are no significant >> objections. >>>>> >>>>> [Fatai] There are two usages for " Bit_Rate " field as described in >>>>> the lines 287-310. >>>>> >>>>> (1) For ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate field indicates the nominal >> bit >>>>> rate of ODUflex(CBR) expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a >>>>> 32-bit IEEE single precision floating-point number. For this case, >>>>> we MUST use 32-bit IEEE floating point instead of "N"(Please see >> more in section 5.1). >>>> >>>> I guess you really still need (to be based on) the client signal >> rate >>>> at the edges. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (2) For ODUflex(GFP), we can change the text (the lines from 305 >> to >>>>> 310) based on your suggestion, ie., the Bit_Rate field is used to >>>>> carry "N"to indicate the nominal bit rate of the ODUflex(GFP). >>>> >>>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right? Wat's the value >>>> of this vs just carrying N? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I am proposing using one single filed ("Bit_Rate ") for >>>>> these two cases, in this way, we can leave the "Reserved" bits for >> future. >>>> >>>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's better to >>>> have simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this >> case). >>>> >>>> Lou >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hope we are now at the same page. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> Fatai >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > >
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-info-m… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-in… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on… Huub van Helvoort
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Fwd: RE: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fred Gruman
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Gruman, Fred