Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564431A03C9 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KgleFJ-QsUSx for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47F41A06CC for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCE53175; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:46:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:45:53 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:45:55 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.15]) by SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:45:50 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: Ramon Casellas , "ccamp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Draft Text for ITU-T - CCAMP Liason regarding Flexi-grid Thread-Index: AQHPPSwcqGay97GfJkiJ4/JTd6KXbZrcCU0AgAAXtHCACPbDAIAAZOSwgAAHvID//4WcAIAAjaGAgAAx4QCAAB1UAIAAzHP1gAAQRrA= Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53282314.1040201@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: <53282314.1040201@cttc.es> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CAD8F40SZXEMA504MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/UoHjuy0PplxWnOKGoTobOjVMrdI Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Draft Text for ITU-T - CCAMP Liason regarding Flexi-grid X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:46:32 -0000 --_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CAD8F40SZXEMA504MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ramon, You mentioned NCFG and SWG before the question, but you did not specify alt= ernative values for what (e.g, NCFG or SWG or both). I assume that you meant "Is ITU-T considering alternative values (e.g. 3.12= 5 GHz) of NCFG in the foreseeable future?". =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Is ITU-T considering alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) in the foreseeable= future? Best Regards Fatai From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:42 PM To: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Draft Text for ITU-T - CCAMP Liason regarding Flexi-gr= id Dear all, Thanks for your comments. Below a revised text, still open for discussion. Personally, I am afraid i still don't fully grasp the last bullet, so pleas= e elaborate a bit more or re-formulate (Iftekhar, Rajan?) [Editor: In my limited understanding: - A NMC as bound to 1 OCh-P by definition of the in-force G.872. - a Media channel may carry more than 1 OCh-P, but MC !=3D NMC - With a Optical Tributary Signal (OTS) there is a 1:1 mapping between OTS:= NMC. - A particular case of OTS is an OCh-P For my understanding, can a OTS group multiple OCh-P?] Thanks R. -------------------------------------------------------- In order to progress our work on the draft "Framework and Requirements for = GMPLS based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks" [1] and subsequent solutio= n documents within the IETF CCAMP working group, we would like to receive y= our comments/clarification as follows (addressing ITU-T experts within Q6, = Q12 and Q14): * Please comment on future changes regarding the values of nominal centr= al frequency (NCF) granularity [NCFG, currently 6.25 GHz] and slot width gr= anularity [currently 12.5 GHz], as defined in G.694.1. Is ITU-T considering= alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) in the foreseeable future? If yes, is = it correct to assume, that the following always holds, w.r.t. slot width gr= anularity and NCF granularity? SWG =3D 2 * NCFG [Note: changes in these values may require additional code= -points within encodings at control plane protocols] * Clarification on the maximum values of the slot width (m parameter) an= d the expected use cases (e.g. to cover the whole C band). Knowing these values is required since it has an impact on their encoding. * Opinion / Clarification on the data plane "hitless" and "hitless" capa= bilities. Is ITU-T considering any hitless procedure, such as resizing / re= storation of a network media channel (in terms of its frequency slot)? Exam= ples of cases where hitless capabilities may be considered are: o Case 1: Recovery where the new network media channel uses a diverse pa= th o Case 2: shrink / enlarge frequency slot width, invariant NCF (n) o Case 3: shift the NCF (n), maintaining the frequency slot width (m) * Clarification on the case where an OTUCn is carried by a (co-routed) g= roup of network media channels which must be managed as a single entity (in= cluding set up, recovery, and hardware cross-connection). If this is in sco= pe, what is the estimated availability of ITU-T Recommendation covering thi= s new requirement? [Note: CCAMP has considered so far the following requirement: "The control = plane architecture SHOULD allow multiple media channels to be logically ass= ociated. The control plane SHOULD allow the co-routing of a set of media c= hannels logically associated". If ITU-T covers this new requirement, it may= have an impact on the control plane representation and related procedures] * Current in-force G.872 recommendation defines that a media channel may= carry more than one OCh-P signal. It also defines that a network media cha= nnel is a specific use of media channel with a single OCh-P. May a network= media channel be defined as associated with more than one OCh-P? [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-01 --_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CAD8F40SZXEMA504MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Ramon,

You mentioned NCFG and SWG before the question, = but you did not specify alternative values for what (e.g, NCFG or SWG or bo= th).

I assume that you meant “Is ITU-T consider= ing alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) of NCFG in the foreseeable future?&= #8221;.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

Is ITU-T considering alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) in t= he foreseeable future?

 

 

 

Best Regards<= o:p>

 

Fatai

 

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:42 PM
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Draft Text for ITU-T - CCAMP Liason regarding F= lexi-grid

 

Dear all,

Thanks for your com= ments. Below a revised text, still open for discussion.
Personally, I am af= raid i still don't fully grasp the last bullet, so please elaborate a bit m= ore or re-formulate (Iftekhar, Rajan?)

[Editor: In my limi= ted understanding:
- A NMC as bound to= 1 OCh-P by definition of the in-force G.872.
- a Media channel m= ay carry more than 1 OCh-P, but MC !=3D NMC
- With a Optical Tr= ibutary Signal (OTS) there is a 1:1 mapping between OTS:NMC.
- A particular case= of OTS is an OCh-P
For my understandin= g, can a OTS group multiple OCh-P?]


Thanks<= span lang=3D"ES" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New&qu= ot;">
R.

-------------------= -------------------------------------

In order to progres= s our work on the draft “Framework and Requirements for GMPLS based c= ontrol of Flexi-grid DWDM networks” [1] and subsequent solution docum= ents within the IETF CCAMP working group, we would like to receive your comments/clarification as follows (addressing ITU-T e= xperts within Q6, Q12 and Q14):

•  =   Please comment on future changes regarding the values of nominal cen= tral frequency (NCF) granularity [NCFG, currently 6.25 GHz] and slot width = granularity [currently 12.5 GHz], as defined in G.694.1. Is ITU-T considering alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) in the foreseeabl= e future? If yes, is it correct to assume, that the following always holds,= w.r.t. slot width granularity and NCF granularity?    
SWG =3D 2 * NCFG [N= ote: changes in these values may require additional code-points within enco= dings at control plane protocols]

•  =   Clarification on the maximum values of the slot width (m parameter) = and the expected use cases (e.g. to cover the whole C band).   &n= bsp;
Knowing these value= s is required since it has an impact on their encoding.

•  =   Opinion / Clarification on the data plane “hitless” and = “hitless” capabilities. Is ITU-T considering any hitless proced= ure, such as resizing / restoration of a network media channel (in terms of= its frequency slot)? Examples of cases where hitless capabilities may be considered are:=
o   = Case 1: Recovery where the new network media channel uses a diverse path
o   = Case 2: shrink / enlarge frequency slot width, invariant NCF (n)
o   = Case 3: shift the NCF (n), maintaining the frequency slot width (m)

•  =   Clarification on the case where an OTUCn is carried by a (co-routed)= group of network media channels which must be managed as a single entity (= including set up, recovery, and hardware cross-connection). If this is in scope, what is the estimated availability of ITU-T Recommend= ation covering this new requirement?
[Note: CCAMP has co= nsidered so far the following requirement: “The control plane archite= cture SHOULD allow multiple media channels to be logically associated. = ; The control plane SHOULD allow the co-routing of a set of media channels logically associated”. If ITU-T covers th= is new requirement, it may have an impact on the control plane representati= on and related procedures]

•  =   Current in-force G.872 recommendation defines that a media channel m= ay carry more than one OCh-P signal. It also defines that a network media c= hannel is a specific use of media channel with a single OCh-P.  May a network media channel be defined as associated with more than one OC= h-P?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-01

--_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CAD8F40SZXEMA504MBSchi_--