RE: Label type to be used
John Drake <jdrake@calient.net> Fri, 26 March 2004 19:07 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08265 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:07:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wfb-0005iA-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:07:07 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wed-0005ad-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:06:08 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wde-0005T3-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:05:07 -0500
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6wOe-000BPT-Hc for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:49:36 +0000
Received: from [63.102.55.206] (helo=lightwave.chromisys.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6wOd-000BP7-Lk for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:49:35 +0000
Received: by lightwave.chromisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GTZGHLSV>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:49:30 -0800
Message-ID: <9D42C6E086250248810DCADA39CE7EFC017AD51F@nimbus.chromisys.com>
From: John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Label type to be used
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:49:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:58 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Label type to be used > > Hi, > > Arthi and Lou pointed out the following typos in the GMPLS routing doc > (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt) which is now in the RFC > Editor's queue: > > In section 2.4.7 is the following table defining the type of label > for various combinations of switching types: > > [PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032] > [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] > [LSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda > [FSC, FSC] - label represents a port on an OXC > [PSC, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] > [PSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda > [PSC, FSC] - label represents a port > [TDM, LSC] - label represents a lambda > [TDM, FSC] - label represents a port > [LSC, FSC] - label represents a port > > The one at issue is [PSC, LSC]; above it says that the label > represents a lambda; and in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully > transparent signal, the above indicates the label represents a TDM > time slot. The proposal is to change this to: > > [PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032] > [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] > [LSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda > [FSC, FSC] - label represents a port on an OXC > [PSC, TDM] - fully transparent signal: label represents a port > ("transparency" is defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) > [PSC, TDM] - non-transparent signal: label represents a TDM time > slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] > [PSC, LSC] - label represents a port > [PSC, FSC] - label represents a port > [TDM, LSC] - label represents a lambda > [TDM, FSC] - label represents a port > [LSC, FSC] - label represents a port > > Please respond by Friday 3/26, 5pm PST with comments on: > > a) do you agree with the above change? [John Drake] I don't have a problem with the [PSC, LSC] change but I don't understand the distinction between transparent and non-transparent TDM as it pertains to GMPLS routing. As I indicated in a previous e-mail, I think the transparent TDM case should be handled with a switching type of LSC and an encoding type of SDH/SONET, and I think that this should be specified in the SDH/SONET I-D, where the distinction between transparent and non-transparent TDM is defined, rather than in this document. > b) in your implementation today, what do expect the label to represent > i) in the case of [PSC, LSC]? [John Drake] Port/lambda > ii) in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully transparent signal? > c) if you implement as the draft says, would it be a hardship to change > this? [John Drake] N/A. Labels for SDH/SONET are defined in the SDH/SONET I-D and it's pretty clear about which types of labels are in the transparent and non-transparent TDM cases. > > If we can get closure on this, I'll take up the task of modifying the > pending RFC with the ADs. > > Kireeti. > -------
- Label type to be used Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Label type to be used Anca Zamfir
- Re: Label type to be used Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Label type to be used Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Label type to be used Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Label type to be used Anca Zamfir
- Re: Label type to be used Ashok Narayanan
- Re: Label type to be used Lou Berger
- Re: Label type to be used Ashok Narayanan
- Re: Label type to be used Ashok Narayanan
- Re: Label type to be used dimitri papadimitriou
- Re: Label type to be used Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Label type to be used dimitri papadimitriou
- Re: Label type to be used Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Label type to be used Lou Berger
- RE: Label type to be used Pandian, Vijay
- RE: Label type to be used John Drake
- Re: Label type to be used Ben Mack-Crane
- RE: Label type to be used John Drake
- Re: Label type to be used Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Label type to be used Arthi Ayyangar
- Re: Label type to be used Ben Mack-Crane
- Re: Label type to be used Ashok Narayanan
- RE: Label type to be used John Drake
- RE: Label type to be used Lou Berger
- RE: Label type to be used Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Label type to be used Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Label type to be used Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Label type to be used Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Label type to be used Pandian, Vijay
- Re: Label type to be used Dimitri.Papadimitriou