[CCAMP] [flexi-grid] Re: New version of "Framework and Requirements for GMPLS based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks"

Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Tue, 05 March 2013 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
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 EDA8421F8698 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 05:00:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.23
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO=2.275, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 hXkA9GUWCnDS for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 05:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rudy.puc.rediris.es (rudy.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F125421F8689 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 05:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by rudy.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1UCrTW-000635-Vd; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:00:11 +0100
Received: from [192.168.101.84] (unknown [192.168.101.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FA781FE12; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:00:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Message-ID: <5135EC5B.60409@cttc.es>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:00:11 +0100
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn, ccamp@ietf.org
References: <OF92DEDC3F.C5A602FE-ON48257B25.0043817B-48257B25.0043ECB8@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF92DEDC3F.C5A602FE-ON48257B25.0043817B-48257B25.0043ECB8@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080305050909000402030304"
X-SPF-Received: 4
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham
Subject: [CCAMP] [flexi-grid] Re: New version of "Framework and Requirements for GMPLS based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks"
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:00:20 -0000

Note: replying to ccamp@ as per wg chairs/AD indications. Apologies for 
having non text email

Xihua,

The model was more or less agreed during unofficial meeting during last 
IETF in Atlanta. Of course it is open to debate and can be extended or 
changed as we see fit.

The reason why it is there if I am not mistaken is two-fold:

- First, as a component that, bound to a fiber, defines the working 
region / spectrum of the TE link, as discussed in the previous section.

- Second, as the filter component that can be configured to filter a 
frequency slot that is then the input of the matrix channel.

We can change it if the agreement is not correct (for example, if the 
filter component is part of the elements that constitute the matrix 
channel). What would you propose instead? I am not sure I understand 
your suggestion. Maybe it should be made clear that the box with a X is 
just a functional element able to switch a frequency slot from one input 
port to an output port. On the right hand side, there is also the MUX 
function.

Thanks

R.


El 05/03/2013 13:20, fu.xihua@zte.com.cn escribió:
>
> Hi All,
>
> In section 7.1, following model is not quite correct.
> What is the filter? Is it coupler, optical amplifier, or optical 
> splitter?
> I think there should be no any filter at both side of matrix channel.
>
>