Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Cyril,

I think your example is a corner case, which is not typical case. We should not base this kind of highly theoretical corner case as the base case for your analysis. We are dealing with WSON switching enabled ROADM networks, not necessarily dealing with legacy DWDM system. Please also note that the typical WSON switching nodes are transparent nodes. Only some of the nodes may have Regen elements ---as I mentioned in the previous email, the operators try to minimize the use of Regen's due to its high cost.

Please see my other comment in-line.

Thanks.
Young


________________________________
From: Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:26 AM
To: Leeyoung; ext Greg Bernstein; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

Hi Young Lee, Ccamper's,

Reducing the type of regenerator makes sense but  mixing regenerator type makes also sense, as you would try to avoid having only 40G-capable 3R when you can go for a cheaper 10G regenerator, depending on your demands.

  In Greenfield deployments single rate makes sense, in an existing networks having multi-rate (2) support with different electrical module may be less common but should still be supported.
   This kind of network would need 6 description for the processing capability alone.  The total number of resource description need to be higher, as in the info model  the description of a regenerator include the number of resource. Each time the connectivity imply a different number of regenerator are grouped together a separate ResourceBlockInfo should be used (Separating connectivity and regenerator setup would help here).

YOUNG>> Your point on "separating connectivity and regenerator setup would help here" is exactly the encoding principles of the current WG adopted encoding drafts.  Then I don't clearly understand what the Pierre's draft are trying to do.

Best case would see indeed 0-2 type of regenerator, intermediate actual deployments can see 6 types of regenerator, we also considered looking at possible evolutions, 10 being in our opinion a reasonable number.

I hope it could help you understand better what is considered in the draft. Those consideration will be more detailed in the next revision  of the draft.

Best Regards



From: ext Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich); ext Greg Bernstein; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

Hi Cyril,

I think your analysis below is very theoretical and a bit out of reality in WSON node configuration.

We are dealing with wavelength level so that OTUk level is transparent to WSON. In typical optical switch node configuration in WSON, we don't simply mix up all possible kinds of regenerators per each modulation type. It is true that we have many modulation types for each rate and the model should support all possibility. But this does not mean we have all "10 types" at the same time in a node design. As you know, regenerator is one of the most expensive WSON elements and having many types in a node is not economical and not realistic.

As far as my understanding of node design, we don't have such thing as you said in your email to support 10+ different types of regenerators in a node. In a typical commercially deployed WSON switching node, we have one rate (e.g., 10G or 40G, or possibly others) and one regenerator type for each rate. If we have multi-rate support, we may have two rates and thus two regenerators in a typical WSON switching node.

I would be interested in the node design diagram that supports 10+ different regenerators at the same time. I haven't seen such one myself yet.

Please also note that the WSON model has to support transparent node configuration, which we don't have "regen" element.

Best Regards,
Young



________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:36 AM
To: ext Greg Bernstein; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt



Hi Greg, CCAMPers,

Regarding point (2), using one regen type per OTUk (k in [[1..4]]), and 2 type of laser module per reach makes already 8 type of oeo properties. Adding slightly different hw types (i.e old board with old modulation and a more recent with DP-QPSK) makes an easy 10 types for a big node.

Without going into product families this sounded reasonable (for instance a typical product would indicate supports for 10 and 40g with different modulation, so lets say 2 sub-board type, which makes 6 regen type); The introduction of OTU4 and later OTU5 will increase the types of regenerator supported.

The size expansion is indeed related to the number of regenerator type, resource blocks contain connectivity, oeo-feature and how the blocks are grouped.

The other point would indeed clarify the document, the setup of resource pools/blocks is shown in Figure 1, a resource pool aggregating  the connectivity for several resource blocks.

Best regards.



From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Greg Bernstein
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:20 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

Hi Pierre and draft authors, can you provide:
(1) Diagrams of the example switches particularly with respect to the structure of the resource pools/blocks.
(2) Explanation of why so many different types (not number) of regenerators in an optical node. You site 5 different types for a small node and 10 for a large node. Can you point to a product family?  I would think 0-1 types of regenerators for a small node and at maybe 2 for a large node or nodes that deal with long haul and metro types modulations.
(3) Can you provide the example encodings such as done in the appendix of the encoding document so we can understand where the expansion is taking place.

It seems that the size expansions is directly related to the number of regenerator types, but hard to tell from this document.  Are there any other WSON interested parties that have a need for so many regenerator types?

Cheers

Greg B.

On 6/10/2011 7:19 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:

Hi Ccampers,



During Prague meeting I was asked to provide a draft detailing the solution we were presenting then concerning OSPF-TE extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (see point 10 of ccamp minutes).

Julien, Giovanni, Cyril and I have tackled this work of providing a complete description of the solution with commonalities and deltas from the existing solution held in the following drafts:

  - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11

  - draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-04

  - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-00

  - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11

  - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-04



Feedback from the working group is welcome.



To trigger this feedback, this draft holds inside section 5 a numerical study on the amount of static and dynamic information to be flooded.

This study was conducted on various typical WSON nodes and compares the size of the LSAs between the two solutions.



Regards,



- Pierre





_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp


--

===================================================

Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]