Re: [CCAMP] gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery Rev02 vs Rev06 - OTU2e

"Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.xian@huawei.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 7876E21F99F4 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.661, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 gi9R1kNQ0m+B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCA211E817B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXB99953; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:43:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 02:43:49 +0100
Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 02:43:51 +0100
Received: from SZXEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.66]) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:43:45 +0800
From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
To: "Pickering, Ladan" <Ladan.Pickering@us.fujitsu.com>
Thread-Topic: gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery Rev02 vs Rev06 - OTU2e
Thread-Index: Ac6rW0fMZ2iAV1hxSIKwo5rUiHL0uABocWPg
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:43:44 +0000
Message-ID: <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B18A13218@szxeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <01B828A5E4EE9748A7A3575B6CE345C66F862575@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local>
In-Reply-To: <01B828A5E4EE9748A7A3575B6CE345C66F862575@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B18A13218szxeml510mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery Rev02 vs Rev06 - OTU2e
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, 09 Sep 2013 01:44:01 -0000

Hi, Ladan,

     The change made in the OTN LMP draft was just reflecting what was agreed a while ago in CCAMP WG that only G.709 is referenced.

As you probably already know that OTU2e is not supported in G.709( as the note states below Table 7-1 of the version published in Feb. 2012), but rather specified in G.sup43. That’s why we do not cover it any more in the our OTN LMP draft.

I hope this clarify your question.

Regards,

Xian


From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pickering, Ladan
Sent: 2013年9月7日 7:46
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] gmpls-g.709-lmp-discovery Rev02 vs Rev06 - OTU2e

Hi Xian,
I have noticed that in revision 02 of the LMP draft, OTU2e was defined as a HO-ODU with a value of 5 under OD(T)UK, but on rev 06 of this draft this has been removed, but  “Flag F” corresponding to ODU2e as a LO-ODU is still in rev 6.

Version 2:
OD(T)Uk field     Signal type of HO ODUk or OTUk
   -------------     ------------------------------
      0              Reserved (for future use)
      1              HO ODU1 or OTU1
      2              HO ODU2 or OTU2
      3              HO ODU3 or OTU3
      4              HO ODU4 or OTU4
      5              OTU2e
      6              OTU3e1
      7              OTU3e2
      8-15           Reserved (for future use)

Version 6:
OD(T)Uk field     Signal type of HO ODUk or OTUk
   -------------     ------------------------------
      0              Reserved (for future use)
      1              HO ODU1 or OTU1
      2              HO ODU2 or OTU2
      3              HO ODU3 or OTU3
      4              HO ODU4 or OTU4
      5-15           Reserved (for future use)

Can you please help me understand why OTU2e was removed from OD(T)UK?

If we have a link that supports OTU2e and allows a 11.095 rate, what should go in ODU(T)UK?

Thanks,
Ladan