[CCAMP] Examples in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-05

"Gruman, Fred" <fred.gruman@us.fujitsu.com> Fri, 22 March 2013 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fred.gruman@us.fujitsu.com>
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 E442821F8E41 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WBqNGGeAPRty for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fncnmp04.fnc.fujitsu.com (fncnmp04.fnc.fujitsu.com [168.127.0.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D15521F8A04 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,893,1355119200"; d="scan'208";a="29816828"
Received: from rchexhcp2.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.76]) by fncnmp02.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 22 Mar 2013 14:10:05 -0500
Received: from RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local ([169.254.2.41]) by RCHEXHCP2.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:10:05 -0500
From: "Gruman, Fred" <fred.gruman@us.fujitsu.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: Examples in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-05
Thread-Index: Ac4f730w+kanHgoHRT6IT+v/deGh0gAAjgiAABGq7AD///I2gIAAGH1S///+4gD//r3pAIACf5+A///sP/D/80XAAA==
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:10:04 +0000
Message-ID: <5DF87403A81B0C43AF3EB1626511B2924400AD16@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local>
References: <650AA355E323C34D9D4AAEED952E053D3FB173C6@SV-EXDB-PROD2.infinera.com> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4801C044@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1B2BA7D1@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <13d65dd005e.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1B2BBB14@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <514103A5.3010609@labn.net> <650AA355E323C34D9D4AAEED952E053D3FB179F0@SV-EXDB-PROD2.infinera.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4809F811@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <650AA355E323C34D9D4AAEED952E053D3FB18338@SV-EXDB-PROD2.infinera.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4809F863@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4809F863@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [168.127.136.253]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19742.001
x-tm-as-result: No--36.671300-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Examples in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-05
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:10:08 -0000

Hi Daniele,

I'm looking through the examples in Section 5.2 and have the following comments regarding the setting of TSG:

1) Example Fig 8.  This example has ODU1 -> ODU2 -> ODU3

I do not think the ODU1 TSG should be 1 (1.25/2.5G) since this ODU1 is not being advertised to support ODU0.  In this case, I think TSG=0 (Ignored).

2) Section 5.2.1, Fig 9. This example has ODU1 -> ODU2 -> ODU3.

This example doesn't show the advertisement of all ODU rates. Because of this, I would recommend changing the Sig Type = ODU2 instead of ODU1 in both SCSIs in Fig 9.  The reason is that it is the ODU2 (and perhaps the ODU3)  that would support the different TSG values depending on [RFC 4328] vs G.709-2012 with fallback disabled.

3) Section 5.5, Figure 13.

I believe the first Sig type=ODU2 (where #stages=1, stages=ODU4) should have the TSG = either 1 or 3.

Note that this example is not consistent in populating the TSG fields for all ODU rates. I would recommend explicitly showing the TSG values for all ODU rates as this provides useful information.

Best Regards,
Fred