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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Ah yes, apologies. Ramon has just explained this to me. sorry for being thick.

You are talking about the thing that "m" multiplies for the slot width.
Currently 12.5.

I can see the potential, but (of course) we are again talking about
future-proofing in a rather speculative way.
Where do we stand with data plane specs and implementations of this hardware?

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 06 February 2014 08:37
> To: [e-mail]; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel
King';
> 'CCAMP'
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
Switching
> Routers
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> I'm not talking about defining new CS values. I'm proposing adding a separate
> SWG (slot width granularity) field to allow for granularities finer than 12.5
GHz in
> the future. Maybe this is unnecessarily future-proof and we can deal with it
> if/when it becomes necessary. Just wanted to bring it up for discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jonas
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: den 5 februari 2014 23:40
> > To: Jonas Mårtensson; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel King';
> > 'CCAMP'
> > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> > Switching Routers
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This seems like future-proofing for the sake of future proofing.
> >
> > I think that the proposed CS value gives us 6.25 (recall, we already had
> > 12.5).
> >
> > If 3.125 or some "odd" value like 17.937 becomes a requirement in the future
> > we
> > could define a new CS value to mean "CS is encoded in bytes 6 and 7 of the
> > label" and then utilise the two currently reserved bytes. That is how we
might
> > do it, but I would be less than enthusiastic about making this provision now
> > on
> > the theory that we might need it one day.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 05 February 2014 09:18
> > > To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); [e-mail]; 'Daniel
> > King';
> > > 'CCAMP'
> > > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> > Switching
> > > Routers
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I don't know if this has been proposed and discussed already but why not
> > also
> > > add a field indicating slot width granularity (similar to the C.S. field)
> > where today
> > > the only defined value would correspond to 12.5 GHz. This would
> accommodate
> > a
> > > potentially finer granularity in the future (when technologies improve as
> > Gabriele
> > > points out).
> > >
> > > /Jonas
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gabriele
> Maria
> > > > Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> > > > Sent: den 31 januari 2014 16:47
> > > > To: [e-mail]; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> > > > Switching Routers
> > > >
> > > > Hi Adrian,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification.
> > > > If We talk about the the slot with granularity specified by G.694.1
> > > > To be 12.5GHz, I agree that we have to wait any ITU feedback.
> > > > On the other hand I don't see any constraint of Spectrum Width
> > > > Size in G.694.1.  So there is no specification/limitation to m value.
> > > >
> > > > In this sense I'd agree with Ramon: why not extend it.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Gabriele
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gabriele Galimberti
> > > > Technical Leader
> > > > Cisco Photonics Srl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Via Philips, 12
> > > > 20900 - Monza (MI)
> > > > Italy
> > > > www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> > > >
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Phone :[phone]
> > > > Mobile :[phone]
> > > > Fax :[phone]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/31/14 12:44 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thoughts?
> > > > >Adrian
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gabriele
> > > Maria
> > > > >> Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> > > > >> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:35
> > > > >> To: Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
Label
> > > > >Switching
> > > > >> Routers
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Daniel
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have a change request on the label:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> > > > >>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >>    |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier      |               n
> > |
> > > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >>    |       m     |                     Reserved                    |
> > > > >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like to extend the m value range to 16 bits to have the
possibility
> > > > >>to
> > > > >> Allocate the whole C-band spectrum if needed.
> > > > >> With 8 bits we can allocate only 60% of it.
> > > > >> Another reason is that when new technologies will be available the
> > > > >> Slot Width Granularity may increase (to 6.25GHz or better).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So the proposed change is:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> > > > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> > > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >> |Grid | C.S. |    Identifier    |                n              |
> > > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >> |                m              |            Reserved           |
> > > > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  m field = 16 bits.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best Regards,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Gabriele
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Gabriele Galimberti
> > > > >> Technical Leader
> > > > >> Cisco Photonics Srl
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Via Philips, 12
> > > > >> 20900 - Monza (MI)
> > > > >> Italy
> > > > >> www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > >> Phone :[phone]
> > > > >> Mobile :[phone]
> > > > >> Fax :[phone]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 1/29/14 6:06 PM, "Daniel King" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Hi CCAMP'rs,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but
the
> > > > >> >only
> > > > >> >changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section as
> > per
> > > > >> >RFC6982.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further
> > > > >> >technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been
> > > > >>picked
> > > > >> >up
> > > > >> >by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the
> > > > >> >working
> > > > >> >group:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >- Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft?
> > > > >> >- Are you happy with the label format described?
> > > > >> >- What do you think the next steps should be for this draft?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Thanks,
> > > > >> >Dan (for the authors)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >_______________________________________________
> > > > >> >CCAMP mailing list
> > > > >> >[e-mail]
> > > > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> CCAMP mailing list
> > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp