IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CCAMP] 答复: Question on NMC in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709

Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@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 2B9C521F8B17 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.015
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 cyFjd2LcI5SO for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B30C21F8B11 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LS7003IQN4KJR@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:05:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LS700IO3N4BM3@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:05:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ADY26517; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:05:07 +0800
Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:05:04 +0800
Received: from SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.142]) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.136]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:04:58 +0800
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:04:58 +0000
From: Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <B3B6FD81D3159A45B5421AF9DD500F880B9CC2@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
X-Originating-IP: [172.24.2.40]
To: Ben Wright <Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF812BB2315@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_m1n9JcmwHNVegDToov9AEA)"
Content-language: zh-CN
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: Question on NMC in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709
Thread-index: Acx89VlrIwvIizXFQ3623ojG/v0sWwAjP4Ef
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <B3B6FD81D3159A45B5421AF9DD500F880B9CC2@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复: Question on NMC in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:02:33 -0000

Hi Ben,



I personally quite agree with you that the easy way is to deprecate NMC.



We will add some text to address that (at least an editors' note will be added to capture that).



Fatai



Thanks







________________________________
发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ben Wright [Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com]
发送时间: 2011年9月27日 17:10
到: ccamp@ietf.org
主题: [CCAMP] Question on NMC in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709

Hi all,

I had a detailed query about the NMC usage in draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709.   This inherits the usage of the NMC from RFC4328, which would indicate the number of tributary slots requested for this signal type.   I think the following are both true.

-          This information is strictly speaking redundant because the label now describes how the signal type will be multiplexed onto a given link.

-          With the introduction of the 1.25Gbps size, the tributary slot size can vary in a network.   Therefore, to preserve the usage of the NMC from RFC4328 nodes which supported both TS sizes would need to translate the SENDER_TSPEC object at each hop to encode the right NMC value given the TS to be used on a given hop.   This isn’t typical behaviour for a SENDER_TSPEC.

Given the above, it seems to me easier to revert back to the original definition, which deprecated this field from RFC4328.   To preserve back-compatibility with RFC4328, I understand you’ve already agreed that nodes supporting draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709 should signal OTN LSPs with switching capability 101 (OTN-TDM capable).  This makes it safe to deprecate the NMC field in this new usage.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email