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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,

Do you imply that we might need more than 16 bits???

/Loa

On 2014-02-03 15:59, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I agree and don't see any strong reason for why CCAMP should not go with
> m=16. However, at the moment we can say that usage of only x number of
> bits is define (to match current DP definition in ITU-T).
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Iftekhar com>" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:07 AM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>, Oscar de Dios
> <[e-mail]>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> Switching Routers
>
>> This is a very interesting discussion.  I believe extending the value of
>> m to 16-bit makes sense. BTW, that is why in our label definition we had
>> proposed a 16-bit for the m to begin with.
>>
>> Regarding "why not", all along there has been recurring theme of not
>> getting ahead of ITU definitions. So I am afraid, we can be selective.
>> Having said this, if the collective wisdom is to go ahead - that is fine
>> with me. But then let us look at all aspects and solutions (routing,
>> signaling, etc.).
>>
>> Regarding the "entire spectrum slot is feasible", I agree. So let us
>> first start with discussing/capturing this requirement/use case in the
>> framework document?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Iftekhar
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08 AM
>> To: Oscar González de Dios; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon Casellas
>> Cc: CCAMP
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
>> Switching Routers
>>
>>>> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other
>>>> question would be "why not"?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> We still have 16 bits reserved...
>>
>> BR
>> Daniele
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Oscar
>>> González de Dios
>>> Sent: venerdì 31 gennaio 2014 17:06
>>> To: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon Casellas
>>> Cc: CCAMP
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
>>> Label Switching Routers
>>>
>>> Hi, my 2 cents...
>>>
>>>    With the encoding, you should be able to describe a frequency slot
>>> as big as the whole spectrum available in the band. If 8 bits (that
>>> give a width of
>>> 1593,75 GHz using the granularity of 6,25) is not enough, then it MUST
>>> be extended to a bigger value. The flexi-grid framework allows a
>>> hierarchy of frequency slots, so the ³entire spectrum² slot is
>>> feasible and in line with current ITU recommendations. We are not
>>> saying a single signal uses that amount of spectrum.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Oscar
>>>
>>>
>>> El 31/01/14 16:47, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)"
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:27, Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> El 31/01/2014 15:03, Loa Andersson escribió:
>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not have any problem with that, unless there is a intended
>>>>>> use of the reserved field.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Loa, Adrian, all,
>>>>>
>>>>> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other
>>>>> question would be "why not"?
>>>>> If, as Adrian mentions, we constrain the its use as defined in
>>>>> G.694.1 while leaving room for growth, at least the encoding would
>>>>> be more likely be reused (as opposed to the WSON -> SSON).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GM> is not mere reuse but future protocol compatibility.  Sounds to
>>>> GM> me
>>>> that¹s better to allocate few more bits know than looking for them in
>>>> the future. Btw, to answer Loa doubts, there¹s no idea about how
>>>> using reserved bits right now.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For what is worth, individual drafts that are considering extending
>>>>> RSVP-TE for signaling media channels would also be affected. The
>>>>> underlying idea is to propose new types for the sender template and
>>>>> the flowspec in the flow descriptor to accommodate for the requested
>>>>> and allocated slot width. Right now, only the "m" parameter is
>>>>> encoded with the corresponding padding/reserved bytes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ramon
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: much like Adrian's draft, the label encoding proposed in
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ccamp-flexible-grid-label-00
>>>>> also took into account the fact that a reduced number of bits would
>>>>> suffice to cover G.694.1
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-01-31 19:44, Adrian Farrel 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.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
>>> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
>>> en el enlace situado más abajo.
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
>>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]