Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Rajan Rao <rrao@infinera.com> Mon, 12 December 2011 18:48 UTC
Return-Path: <rrao@infinera.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 D9E3D21F891D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:48:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.854
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.595, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 PfPEPYPAKdB4 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com [8.4.225.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B44621F87C5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.218]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:48:50 -0800
From: Rajan Rao <rrao@infinera.com>
To: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>, "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Thread-Index: AQHMuL1DVEgtA1w3zkOCrsDOVMqDrJXY0paA//+yLCA=
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:48:49 +0000
Message-ID: <650AA355E323C34D9D4AAEED952E053D0AC1D666@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED64A32.8060707@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CA99D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4ED65D2D.2040400@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CADAB@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EDE354F.20803@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18C0@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EDE7B04.5000804@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B682A99E@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EE0D4A2.7010209@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A53EC3D54E@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819988D0D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <A0B4FC0A5EFBD44585414760DB4FD274337BF2CA@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <A0B4FC0A5EFBD44585414760DB4FD274337BF2CA@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.156.108]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:48:53 -0000
Lou, I am not seeing a big gain by encoding bottom most ODUk in SC field for the following reasons: 1) it doesn't give full hierarchy picture supported on the link. Meaning, sub-ODUj services over this link still requires more than SC field. 2) the only case it simplifies is service creation at ODUk layer. 3) once a sub-ODUj service is created, the link is no longer capable of service at ODUk layer. So, you still have to look at available-ODU advertisement even for ODUk services. My preference is like rest of the authors. Thanks Rajan -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ong, Lyndon Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 7:02 AM To: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); John E Drake; Lou Berger Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) +1 Lyndon -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:00 AM To: John E Drake; Lou Berger Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) Hi all, we agree with John's consideration on keeping switching capability as indicator of the switching technology and not overloading the meaning with layers within the same technology. Thanks Sergio and Pietro -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di John E Drake Inviato: venerdì 9 dicembre 2011 11.05 A: Lou Berger Cc: CCAMP Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) Lou, I think I would argue with your characterization of a. Other than PSC 1-4, which as I have previously stated was an abject failure, switching capability was never used to indicate layers within the same switching technology. So, I would argue that what we are doing in OTN is really a. I.e., keep switching capability as it is, an indicator of the switching technology. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:16 AM > To: John E Drake > Cc: Zhangfatai; Julien Meuric; CCAMP > Subject: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue > 1/2) > > John, > As I'm sure you are aware, hierarchy within the same technology > layer has been around for a while. When we defined GMPLS, there was a > desire to represent level of hierarchy within a switching technology. > (This requirement came in the context of PSC). At the time we choose > to represent both switching switching technology and level of > hierarchy (within the technology) in the SC field. > > On one hand one can argue (as was our thinking at the time) that there > was only a need to represent a few per-technology hierarchies and that > it simplified GMPLS routing to operate on a minimum number of generic > fields. On the other hand, one could argue that the SC field should > not be overloaded and there should be a separate per-technology > hierarchy indicator field. Hindsight leaves me feeling that the > latter choice may have been the better one. I don't recall exactly > how we came to this conclusion, but there were lots or related > discussions among the authors/editors (which includes you too!). My > bet is that it came from Yakov, myself or Peter... Perhaps your memory > is better than mine, but either way please feel free to blame me ;-) > > No matter what, you now raise a good question. Where do we go from > here? > a. Keep SC as it is, with it's overloaded semantics as both a > common (across technologies) label/ISCD type indicator and > intra-type hierarchy indicator. > b. Deprecate use of SC as an intra-type hierarchy indicator, and > add such indication to technology-specific ISCDs. > c. Something else. > > I (and I believe Julien) are proposing (a), I believe you and the OTN > co-authors are proposing/implying (b). > > Lou > > On 12/7/2011 8:21 AM, John E Drake wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am unaware of any requirement to indicate layers in a multi-layer > > scenario - I went back and looked at both RFC5339 and RFC6001 and > > didn't see anything. And just to be clear, layers are technology > > specific. > > > > Since you mention RFC6001, I think it should be pointed out that > > that RFC does not address multi-layer networking, but only > > multi-region networking. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:29 PM > >> To: Zhangfatai > >> Cc: Julien Meuric; John E Drake; CCAMP > >> Subject: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > (Issue > >> 1/2) > >> > >> > >> I think Julien has it right (and as I've said on this list), it's a > >> question of leveraging or deprecating the use of SC as an indicator > of > >> hierarchy. Deprecating this use means that we need to move into a > >> technology specific hierarchy indicator, which is what you're > >> saying > ST > >> provides. > >> > >> The move from generic to technology-specific mechanisms, really > >> runs counter to the basic principals of GMPLS and is likely to have > >> some nasty ripple effects. (For example do we just obsolete 6001, > >> or do > a > >> bis which allows for / requires carrying the technology-specific > layer > >> identifier?) > >> > >> Lou > >> > >> On 12/6/2011 2:34 PM, Zhangfatai wrote: > >>> Hi Julien, > >>> > >>> For TDM networks, Signal Type has beed introduced in RFC4606 or > >> RFC4328 or G.709V3 drafts to address what you need. > >>> > >>> Anything is missed in routing or signaling? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Fatai > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________ > >>> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Julien > >> Meuric [julien.meuric@orange.com] > >>> 发送时间: 2011年12月6日 23:31 > >>> 到: John E Drake; Lou Berger > >>> Cc: CCAMP > >>> 主题: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>> Hi John, hi Lou. > >>> > >>> On the one hand, SONET/SDH and OTN are close: it is highly > >>> tempting > >> to > >>> prolong control of the former to the latter. Nevertheless, the > GMPLS > >>> deployments on SONET/SDH I am aware of only control high order > >>> containers (i.e. SDH VC-4/VC-4-nc or SONET STS-1/STS-1-nc). In > >>> that context, I do not think we can easily generalized protocol > extensions > >>> from an almost single-stage control to a highly multi-stage > control. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, it seems that PSC-1 to PSC-4 have not been > >>> implemented much. Reasons behind are only guesses. Mine is that > >>> upgrading implementations and deployments of MPLS-TE was not worth > >> the > >>> pain with respect to the added value of moving to the GMPLS flavor > of > >>> IGPs and RSVP-TE (especially for packet-only operations). Whatever > >> the > >>> actual reason for having so few implementations, PSC-n are part of > >> the > >>> original GMPLS specification. > >>> > >>> Let me quote the section about PSC in RFC 4202: "The various > >>> levels > >> of > >>> PSC establish a hierarchy of LSPs tunneled within LSPs." This > really > >>> looks like what we are doing in OTN. Yes, the discrete nature of > the > >>> technology will introduce one more information into the SC field, > but > >>> doing otherwise would depreciate existing GMPLS specification. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, RFC 4203 says: "When the Switching Capability field > >>> is > >> TDM, > >>> the Switching Capability specific information field includes > Minimum > >> LSP > >>> Bandwidth..." In other words, even if not included in the SC field > so > >>> far, one cannot really say that a value per ODUk layer would > overload > >>> the ISCD definition. > >>> > >>> Thus, we have legacy vs. depreciation: my understanding of IETF > work > >> is > >>> to put emphasis on consistency and avoid defining new solutions > when > >>> they already exist, even if not absolutely optimized (we are not > >>> building G.709 control from scratch). > >>> > >>> My 2 cents, > >>> > >>> Julien > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 30/11/2011 22:37, John E Drake a écrit : > >>>> Comments inline. I still think this is a terrible idea and I > would > >>>> like to see what the rest of the WG thinks. > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger > >>>>> [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >>>>> > >>>>> John, > >>>>> > >>>>> see below > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/30/2011 2:59 PM, John E Drake wrote: > >>>>>> Using Switching Capability to indicate link bandwidth seems > >>>>>> ill-considered at best, especially since this information is > >>>>>> carried in other fields, and as Daniele noted, it significantly > >>>>>> overloads to intended meaning of Switching Capability. > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree with the point on BW, but my point was related to the > >>>>> layer&hierarchy implications of the different ODUk values. I'd > >>>>> think that using values that are TDM-1 -> TDM-n should make this > >>>>> clear and remove any ambiguity related to bandwidth. It is also > >>>>> completely consistent with the base GMPLS definition, i.e., > >>>>> PSC-1 > >>>>> -> PSC-n. > >>>> > >>>> [JD] You are simply asserting that this is a good idea and > further > >>>> asserting that there is "ambiguity related to bandwidth', > >>>> without providing any evidence. > >>>> > >>>> To the best of my knowledge no one ever implemented or deployed > the > >>>> PSC-1 -> PSC-4 hierarchy, simply because no one could figure out > >> what > >>>> it meant. To quote from you, below, "Well hopefully we have a > >> better > >>>> understanding of the technologies involved than we had in the > >> past.". > >>>> I.e., we should all understand that PSC-1 -> PSC-4 was a bad > >>>> idea > >>>> (tm) and move on. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> It also is inconsistent with the usage of Switching Capability > in > >>>>>> SDH/SONET. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well hopefully we have a better understanding of the > >>>>> technologies involved than we had in the past. > >>>> > >>>> [JD] I think we had a very good understanding of SDH/SONET then > and > >>>> we have a very good understanding of OTN now, and in both cases > the > >>>> authors saw no requirement to overload switching capability in > the > >>>> manner you are suggesting. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A more extensive quote from RFC4202 is the following, which > >>>>>> seems clear enough to me: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "In the context of this document we say that a link is > >>>>>> connected to a node by an interface. In the context of GMPLS > >>>>>> interfaces may have different switching capabilities. For > >>>>>> example an interface that connects a given link to a node may > >>>>>> not be able > to > >>>>>> switch individual packets, but it may be able to switch > >>>>>> channels within an SDH payload. Interfaces at each end of a > >>>>>> link need not have the same switching capabilities. Interfaces > >>>>>> on the same node need not have the same switching capabilities." > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure how this helps clarify anything... > >>>> > >>>> [JD] I think it clarifies that switching capabilities is meant > >>>> to describe how a given interface switches the information with > which > >> it > >>>> is provided. This has nothing to do with the interface's > bandwidth. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Lou > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger > >>>>>>> [mailto:lberger@labn.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 > >>>>>>> 8:43 AM To: John E Drake Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP Subject: > >>>>>>> Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue > >>>>> 1/2) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Great. Care to substantiate your point? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 11/30/2011 11:14 AM, John E Drake wrote: > >>>>>>>> I completely disagree. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >>>>>>> Behalf > >>>>>>>>> Of Lou Berger Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:22 AM > >>>>>>>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF > >>>>>>>>> OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue > >>>>>>> 1/2) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Daniele, Since I raised the point, I guess I need to > >>>>>>>>> champion it! (With chair hat off.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Daniele said: > >>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom most > >>>>>>>>>> ODUk of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of the > >>>>>>>>>> ISCD. > >>>>>>> After > >>>>>>>>>> a quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the idea was > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> reject > >>>>>>>>>> the proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the > >>>>>>>>>> meaning of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> Switching Capability field. (even if the definition of > >>>>>>>>>> PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the meaning of the switching > >>>>>>>>>> capability field) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This really goes to the interpretation of the intent of > >>>>>>>>> Switching Capability Types. So we have a few definitions: > >>>>>>>>> 3471 says "the > >>>>> type > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> switching that should be performed", 4202 says "describes > >>>>> switching > >>>>>>>>> capability of an interface." 3945 doesn't really define the > >>>>>>>>> term > >>>>> (it > >>>>>>>>> just references 4202), but does equate it with a "layer". > >>>>>>>>> While it allows for hierarchy within a "layer" it also says > >>>>>>>>> hierarchy > >>>>> occurs > >>>>>>>>> "between interface types". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So I interpret Switching Capability Types to represent (a) > >>>>> different > >>>>>>>>> switching/technology layers and (b) different levels of > >>>>>>>>> hierarchy > >>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> even within a layer. I think (a) is identifiable in the > >>>>> definition > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> the original GMPLS supported technologies (i.e., PSC, L2SC, > >>>>>>>>> TDM > >>>>> LSC, > >>>>>>>>> and FSC), and (b) is identifiable in the original types plus > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>> of PSC-1 through PSC-4. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So how does this apply to our current OTN work? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To me, the first question to ask relates to (a), and is > >>>>>>>>> should > >>>>> each > >>>>>>>>> ODUk be modeled as a separate layer? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I know this has been a much debated point, and it seems to > >>>>>>>>> me that > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> are, but more for the perspective of switching layers than > >>>>>>> technology > >>>>>>>>> layers (i.e., they are clearly the same technology but are > >>>>> different > >>>>>>>>> granularity of swicthing.) So this is a yes for me. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think the second question to ask relates to (b), and is > >>>>>>>>> does > >>>>> each > >>>>>>>>> ODUk represent a different level of hierarchy? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I see this as simply yes, and no different than what has > >>>>>>>>> been done > >>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>> recently with Ethernet or, even if we do continue to model > >>>>>>>>> OTN as > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> single layer, no different than PSC-1 -> PSC-4. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's also a minor processing efficiency gained by this > >>>>>>>>> approach > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> nodes that support a smaller set of ODUks than are > >>>>>>>>> advertised > >>>>> within > >>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>> IGP. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Based on all this, I believe different ODUk's should use > >>>>>>>>> different Switching Types. In particular, I'm proposing: > >>>>>>>>> (1) that either the framework or info documents identify > >>>>>>>>> that a per-OTUk Switching Capability Types will be used to > >>>>>>>>> support G.709v3. (2) that > >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3 define a different > >>>>>>>>> Switching Cap field value for each ODUk, and that it state > >>>>>>>>> that the value corresponding to the signal type identified > >>>>>>>>> in the #stages=0 of the ISCP be set. (Without any other > >>>>>>>>> changes to the current definition of ISCD.) (3) that > >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 be updated to match > >>>>>>>>> above. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To keep thinks generic, we probably should use TDM-1 through > >>>>>>>>> TDM-n > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> the new Switching Capability Types, but this is a secondary > >>>>>>> discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Comments? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Lou > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> PS While the above is an important change, it doesn't > >>>>> significantly > >>>>>>>>> impact encoding and won't take much text to make the > >>>>>>>>> actual > >>>>> change, > >>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>> this is a discussion that can continue until Paris if we > >>>>>>>>> really > >>>>> need > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> face to face to resolve the discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2011 1:18 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi CCAMP, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> During the OTN OSPF draft presentation at the IETF > >>>>>>>>>> meeting in > >>>>>>> Taipei > >>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>> comments were raised with respect to the following > >>>>>>>>>> issues: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Issue 1: Using different switching caps for each ODU > >>>>>>>>>> type > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Issue 2: Type 2 (unres bandwidth for variable > >>>>>>>>>> containers) and > >>>>>>> Type > >>>>>>>>> 3 > >>>>>>>>>> (MAX LSP bandwidth foe variable containers always used in > >>>>>>>>>> tandem? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom most > >>>>>>>>>> ODUk of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of the > >>>>>>>>>> ISCD. > >>>>>>> After > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the idea was > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>> reject > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the > >>>>>>>>>> meaning of the Switching Capability field. (even if the > >>>>>>>>>> definition of PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the meaning of > >>>>>>>>>> the switching capability field) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 2: it is analyzed in section 5.3 of the draft > >>>>>>>>>> (version > >>>>> - > >>>>>>>>> 00). > >>>>>>>>>> I'm copying it below for your convenience > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In this example the advertisement of an ODUflex->ODU3 > >>>>> hierarchy > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> shown. In case of ODUflex advertisement the MAX LSP > >>>>>>>>>> bandwidth > >>>>>>>>> needs > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> to be advertised but in some cases also information about > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Unreserved bandwidth could be useful. The amount of > >>>>> Unreserved > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> bandwidth does not give a clear indication of how many > >>>>>>>>>> ODUflex > >>>>>>> LSP > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> can be set up either at the MAX LSP Bandwidth or at > >>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>> rates, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> as it gives no information about the spatial allocation > >>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> TSs. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth could > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> useful > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> during the path computation process, as shown in the > >>>>>>>>>> following > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) with > >>>>>>>>>> MAX > >>>>>>> LSP > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In case 50Gbps of > >>>>>>>>>> Unreserved > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B and > >>>>>>>>>> 3 > >>>>>>> ODUflex > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> LSPs of 10 GBps each, have to be restored, for sure only > >>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> restored along Link B and it is probable (but not sure) > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>> two > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> them can be restored along Link A. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Early proposal was to have, in the case of variable > >>>>>>>>>> containers advertisements (i.e. ODUflex), the MAX LSP > >>>>>>>>>> bandwidth TLV (Type 3) > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> mandatory piece of information and the Unreserved > >>>>>>>>>> bandiwdth TLV > >>>>>>> (Type > >>>>>>>>> 2) > >>>>>>>>>> as an optional piece of information. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The comment received is that optional information can > >>>>>>>>>> lead to interworking issues and the counter proposal was > >>>>>>>>>> to have both > >>>>>>> pieces > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> information as mandatory and, as a consequence, merge the > >>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>> TLVs > >>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>> a single one. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We'd like to hear the opinion of the WG on both issues > >>>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>> proceeding > >>>>>>>>>> with any modification to the document. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Daniele > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *DANIELE CECCARELLI * *System & Technology - DU IP & > >>>>>>>>>> Broadband* > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Via L.Calda, 5 Genova, Italy Phone +390106002512 Mobile > >>>>>>>>>> +393346725750 daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com > >>>>>>>>>> www.ericsson.com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and > >>>>>>>>>> receive > >>>>> email > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> the basis of the term set out at > >>>>> www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer > >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 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 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 mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Julien Meuric
- [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … neil.2.harrison
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake