Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan,
	This point is precisely (one of) the key reasons I put forward the
proposal on multiple SC types.

Lou

On 12/20/2011 11:12 AM, Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote:
> John,
> 
>  
> 
> While each ODU layer is a single layer network, how the ODUs interact
> with each other (e.g. placing an ODU0 into an ODU1) generates a
> multi-layer network.
> 
>  
> 
> This detail is especially important when dealing with multi-stage
> multiplexing (eg ODU0 over ODU1 over ODU2) AND dealing with different
> adaptation styles (e.g. 2.5G TS vs 1.2G TS)
> 
>  
> 
> CCAMP did get a liaison from ITU-T last year pointing these details out
> (LS221).
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan Sadler
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *John E Drake
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:02 AM
> *To:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
> *Cc:* CCAMP
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> (Issue 1/2)
> 
>  
> 
> Sergio,
> 
>  
> 
> Excellent.  Jonathan, check this out.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> John 
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:59 AM
> *To:* John E Drake
> *Cc:* CCAMP; Zhangfatai; Julien Meuric
> *Subject:* R: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> (Issue 1/2)
> 
>  
> 
> John,
> 
> Just to emphasize what you've already well mentioned about multi-layer
> in OTN.
> 
>  
> 
> This is what reports the Recommendation representing Optical Transport
> Network architecture , G.872.
> 
> .....
> 
> "Since the resources that support these topological components support a
> heterogeneous assembly of ODUs, the ODU layer is modelled as a single
> layer network that is independent of bit-rate.  The ODU bit-rate is a
> parameter that allows the number of Tributary Slots (TS) for the ODU
> link connection to be determined."
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Sergio
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di
> John E Drake
> Inviato: martedì 20 dicembre 2011 16.14
> A: Julien Meuric; Zhangfatai
> Cc: CCAMP
> Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> (Issue 1/2)
> 
>  
> 
> Julien,
> 
>  
> 
> I don't know how many times we want to go over this.
> 
>  
> 
> As you might expect, Switching Capability enables path computation to be
> aware of regions in which there are different switching capabilities. 
> It was never intended to delineate sub-regions (layers) within those
> regions.  In particular, nowhere in the entire body of the
> Multi-Layer/Multi-Region work is this capability mentioned.
> 
>  
> 
> Further, it is not used in this manner in SDH/SONET which, along with
> OTN, is the best example of a multi-layer network with which we have to
> deal and the last time we had this discussion, prior to Maastricht, it
> was stated that the ITU has deprecated the use of the concept of
> multi-layer in its modeling of OTN networks.
> 
>  
> 
> Could we please agree that PSC 1-4 was an aberration that can be
> attributed to inexperience and just erase it from our collective memory?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
> 
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> 
>> Of Julien Meuric
> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:54 AM
> 
>> To: Zhangfatai
> 
>> Cc: CCAMP
> 
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> 
>> (Issue 1/2)
> 
>> 
> 
>> Hi Fatai.
> 
>> 
> 
>> About the IGP, I believe we agree on several things:
> 
>> - we are dealing with the ODUk layers within the OTN
> 
>> technology/regions;
> 
>> - the ISCD is an appropriate place to put the information on ODUk
> 
>> capabilities of nodes.
> 
>> 
> 
>> What we disagree on:
> 
>> - using the term "extension" to refer to encoding the hierarchy level
> 
>> in
> 
>> the SC field: the _fact_ is that PSC-[1~4] are part of existing RFCs
> 
>> (e.g. 4203);
> 
>> - selecting the SC field as an information on the hierarchy level.
> 
>> 
> 
>> This leaves us with an open discussion on the latter. We already have 2
> 
>> options on the table for the ISCD in IGPs:
> 
>> a) multiple SC values,
> 
>> b)"Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well)".
> 
>> 
> 
>> First of all, I do not believe the original intend of SC alone was to
> 
>> reflect the notion of region: xSC acronyms may map to "regions", but
> 
>> from a codepoint perspective we can have several values behind a single
> 
>> xSC (e.g. x=P).
> 
>> 
> 
>> Then you propose to use the "[OTN] Signal Type": as opposed to a)
> 
>> above,
> 
>> this is a new extension, created in
> 
>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-00. As emphasized by Kireeti, the SC
> 
>> field should allow to constrain path computation into a range or a
> 
>> sub-part of the hierarchy (without necessarily specifying a full list).
> 
>> The I-D uses a single SC (OTN-TDM) for the whole OTN, which means the
> 
>> SC
> 
>> field is useless to prune the network graph when routing an ODUk: even
> 
>> for pruning, a CSFP implementation needs to parse some OTN-specific
> 
>> sub-TLVs. Hence I prefer the "old-fashion" approach which represent the
> 
>> hierarchy information at a higher level in the IGP, like it was done
> 
>> for
> 
>> PBB-TE (RFC 6060).
> 
>> 
> 
>> Regards,
> 
>> 
> 
>> Julien
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> Le 06/12/2011 20:21, Zhangfatai a écrit :
> 
>> >  Hi Julien,
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  I agree the requirement that you mentioned, but it can be resovled
> 
>> >  without extending Switching Cap.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  It is known that there are two cases described in RFC5212 and
> 
>> >  RFC5339, one is MRN, another one is MLN. In RFC5212, it says:
> 
>> >
> 
>> =======================================================================
> 
>> ========
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> Thus, a control plane region, identified by its switching type value
> 
>> (e.g., TDM), can be sub-divided into smaller-granularity component
> 
>> networks based on "data plane switching layers".  The  Interface
> 
>> Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202],  identifying the
> 
>> interface switching capability (ISC), the encoding type, and the
> 
>> switching bandwidth granularity, enables the characterization of the
> 
>> associated layers.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  In this document, we define a multi-layer network (MLN) to be a
> 
>> >  Traffic Engineering (TE) domain comprising multiple data plane
> 
>> >  switching layers either of the same ISC (e.g., TDM) or different ISC
> 
>> >  (e.g., TDM and PSC) and controlled by a single GMPLS control plane
> 
>> >  instance. We further define a particular case of MLNs. A multi-
> 
>> >  region network (MRN) is defined as a TE domain supporting at least
> 
>> >  two different switching types (e.g., PSC and TDM), either hosted on
> 
>> >  the same device or on different ones, and under the control of a
> 
>> >  single GMPLS control plane instance.
> 
>> >
> 
>> =======================================================================
> 
>> ==============
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> Therefore, for MRN case, we can use Switching Cap to differentiate the
> 
>> different "layers"; for MLN case (same ISC with different granularity),
> 
>> we can use Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well) to
> 
>> differentiate the different granularity.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  So, come back to your question, it can be achived by using Switching
> 
>> >  Cap&Encoding Type&Signal Type to identify the granularity requested
> 
>> >  in OTN networks(e.g., this information can be carried in
> 
>> >  SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object) .
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Lastly, in my opinion, if there is no issue based on the existing
> 
>> >  mechnism or definition without extending Switching Cap, I don't
> 
>> think
> 
>> >  we need to extend Switching Cap.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Thanks
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Fatai
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  ________________________________________ 发件人: Julien Meuric
> 
>> >  [[e-mail]] 发送时间: 2011年12月7日 0:08 到: Zhangfatai
> 
>> Cc:
> 
>> >  CCAMP; [e-mail] 主题: Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations
> 
>> post
> 
>> >  IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Hi Fatai.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  As co-author of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, I believe you will
> 
>> >  agree on the fact that having a Switching Capability per ODUk layer
> 
>> >  would make the use of objects including a Switching Cap field rather
> 
>> >  straightforward and enables a fine-grained resource description,
> 
>> e.g.
> 
>> >  in: - REQ-ADAP-CAP object, to precisely identify the type of
> 
>> >  adaptation requested by a higher layer, or to get a clear feedback
> 
>> on
> 
>> >  the missing adaptation for unsuccessful path computations; -
> 
>> >  SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object, to precisely identify the type of
> 
>> >  server layer within the ERO.
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Do not you think that summarizing G.709 by a single Switching Cap
> 
>> >  value would take some capabilities away? What would you suggest so
> 
>> as
> 
>> >  to achieve the same level of details in that scenario?
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Regards,
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Julien
> 
>> >
> 
>> >
> 
>> >  Le 02/12/2011 09:51, Zhangfatai a écrit :
> 
>> > > Hi all,
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > I agree that there is no need to overload Switching Cap.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > Thanks
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > Fatai
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
> 
>> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BELOTTI, SERGIO
> 
>> > > (SERGIO)
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > John, as co-authors, we shared completely your thoughts.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > Thanks Sergio and Pietro
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > SERGIO BELOTTI
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > ALCATEL-LUCENT Terrestrial System Architect Optics Portfolio
> 
>> > > Evolution
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > via Trento 30 , Vimercate(MI) Italy T: [phone]
> 
>> > > [e-mail]
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > -----Messaggio originale----- Da: [e-mail]
> 
>> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di John E Drake Inviato:
> 
>> > > mercoledì 30 novembre 2011 22.37 A: Lou Berger Cc: CCAMP Oggetto:
> 
>> > > Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > Comments inline. I still think this is a terrible idea and I would
> 
>> > > like to see what the rest of the WG thinks.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger
> 
>> > >> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011
> 
>> > >> 1:09 PM To: John E Drake Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP Subject:
> 
>> > >> Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> John,
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> see below
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> On 11/30/2011 2:59 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> 
>> > >>> Using Switching Capability to indicate link bandwidth seems
> 
>> > >>> ill-considered at best, especially since this information is
> 
>> > >>> carried in other fields, and as Daniele noted, it
> 
>> > >>> significantly overloads to intended meaning of Switching
> 
>> > >>> Capability.
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> I agree with the point on BW, but my point was related to the
> 
>> > >> layer&hierarchy implications of the different ODUk values. I'd
> 
>> > >> think that using values that are TDM-1 -> TDM-n should make this
> 
>> > >> clear and remove any ambiguity related to bandwidth. It is also
> 
>> > >> completely consistent with the base GMPLS definition, i.e.,
> 
>> > >> PSC-1 -> PSC-n.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > [JD] You are simply asserting that this is a good idea and further
> 
>> > > asserting that there is "ambiguity related to bandwidth', without
> 
>> > > providing any evidence.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > To the best of my knowledge no one ever implemented or deployed
> 
>> > > the PSC-1 -> PSC-4 hierarchy, simply because no one could figure
> 
>> > > out what it meant. To quote from you, below, "Well hopefully we
> 
>> > > have a better understanding of the technologies involved than we
> 
>> > > had in the past.". I.e., we should all understand that PSC-1 ->
> 
>> > > PSC-4 was a bad idea (tm) and move on.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >>> It also is inconsistent with the usage of Switching Capability
> 
>> > >>> in SDH/SONET.
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> Well hopefully we have a better understanding of the
> 
>> > >> technologies involved than we had in the past.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > [JD] I think we had a very good understanding of SDH/SONET then
> 
>> > > and we have a very good understanding of OTN now, and in both cases
> 
>> > > the authors saw no requirement to overload switching capability in
> 
>> > > the manner you are suggesting.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >>>
> 
>> > >>> A more extensive quote from RFC4202 is the following, which
> 
>> > >>> seems clear enough to me:
> 
>> > >>>
> 
>> > >>> "In the context of this document we say that a link is
> 
>> > >>> connected to a node by an interface. In the context of GMPLS
> 
>> > >>> interfaces may have different switching capabilities. For
> 
>> > >>> example an interface that connects a given link to a node may
> 
>> > >>> not be able to switch individual packets, but it may be able to
> 
>> > >>> switch channels within an SDH payload. Interfaces at each end
> 
>> > >>> of a link need not have the same switching capabilities.
> 
>> > >>> Interfaces on the same node need not have the same switching
> 
>> > >>> capabilities."
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> Not sure how this helps clarify anything...
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > [JD] I think it clarifies that switching capabilities is meant to
> 
>> > > describe how a given interface switches the information with which
> 
>> > > it is provided. This has nothing to do with the interface's
> 
>> > > bandwidth.
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > >>
> 
>> > >> Lou
> 
>> > >>>
> 
>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger
> 
>> > >>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011
> 
>> > >>>> 8:43 AM To: John E Drake Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
> 
>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> 
>> > >>>> (Issue
> 
>> > >> 1/2)
> 
>> > >>>>
> 
>> > >>>> Great. Care to substantiate your point?
> 
>> > >>>>
> 
>> > >>>> On 11/30/2011 11:14 AM, John E Drake wrote:
> 
>> > >>>>> I completely disagree.
> 
>> > >>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
> 
>> > >>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> 
>> > >>>> Behalf
> 
>> > >>>>>> Of Lou Berger Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:22 AM
> 
>> > >>>>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP]
> 
>> > >>>>>> OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue
> 
>> > >>>> 1/2)
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> Hi Daniele, Since I raised the point, I guess I need to
> 
>> > >>>>>> champion it! (With chair hat off.)
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> All,
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> Daniele said:
> 
>> > >>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom
> 
>> > >>>>>>> most ODUk of
> 
>> > >>>> the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the ISCD.
> 
>> > >>>> After
> 
>> > >>>>>>> a quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> idea was to
> 
>> > >>>> reject
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> meaning of
> 
>> > >>>> the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Switching Capability field. (even if the definition of
> 
>> > >>>>>>> PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the meaning of the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> switching capability field)
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> This really goes to the interpretation of the intent of
> 
>> > >>>>>> Switching Capability Types. So we have a few
> 
>> > >>>>>> definitions: 3471 says "the
> 
>> > >> type
> 
>> > >>>> of
> 
>> > >>>>>> switching that should be performed", 4202 says
> 
>> > >>>>>> "describes
> 
>> > >> switching
> 
>> > >>>>>> capability of an interface." 3945 doesn't really define
> 
>> > >>>>>> the term
> 
>> > >> (it
> 
>> > >>>>>> just references 4202), but does equate it with a
> 
>> > >>>>>> "layer". While it allows for hierarchy within a "layer"
> 
>> > >>>>>> it also says hierarchy
> 
>> > >> occurs
> 
>> > >>>>>> "between interface types".
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> So I interpret Switching Capability Types to represent
> 
>> > >>>>>> (a)
> 
>> > >> different
> 
>> > >>>>>> switching/technology layers and (b) different levels of
> 
>> > >>>>>> hierarchy
> 
>> > >> --
> 
>> > >>>>>> even within a layer. I think (a) is identifiable in the
> 
>> > >> definition
> 
>> > >>>> of
> 
>> > >>>>>> the original GMPLS supported technologies (i.e., PSC,
> 
>> > >>>>>> L2SC, TDM
> 
>> > >> LSC,
> 
>> > >>>>>> and FSC), and (b) is identifiable in the original types
> 
>> > >>>>>> plus the
> 
>> > >>>> definition
> 
>> > >>>>>> of PSC-1 through PSC-4.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> So how does this apply to our current OTN work?
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> To me, the first question to ask relates to (a), and is
> 
>> > >>>>>> should
> 
>> > >> each
> 
>> > >>>>>> ODUk be modeled as a separate layer?
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> I know this has been a much debated point, and it seems
> 
>> > >>>>>> to me that
> 
>> > >>>> they
> 
>> > >>>>>> are, but more for the perspective of switching layers
> 
>> > >>>>>> than
> 
>> > >>>> technology
> 
>> > >>>>>> layers (i.e., they are clearly the same technology but
> 
>> > >>>>>> are
> 
>> > >> different
> 
>> > >>>>>> granularity of swicthing.) So this is a yes for me.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> I think the second question to ask relates to (b), and
> 
>> > >>>>>> is does
> 
>> > >> each
> 
>> > >>>>>> ODUk represent a different level of hierarchy?
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> I see this as simply yes, and no different than what has
> 
>> > >>>>>> been done
> 
>> > >>>> more
> 
>> > >>>>>> recently with Ethernet or, even if we do continue to
> 
>> > >>>>>> model OTN as
> 
>> > >> a
> 
>> > >>>>>> single layer, no different than PSC-1 -> PSC-4.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> There's also a minor processing efficiency gained by
> 
>> > >>>>>> this approach
> 
>> > >>>> for
> 
>> > >>>>>> nodes that support a smaller set of ODUks than are
> 
>> > >>>>>> advertised
> 
>> > >> within
> 
>> > >>>> an
> 
>> > >>>>>> IGP.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> Based on all this, I believe different ODUk's should use
> 
>> > >>>>>> different Switching Types. In particular, I'm proposing:
> 
>> > >>>>>> (1) that either the framework or info documents identify
> 
>> > >>>>>> that a per-OTUk Switching Capability Types will be used
> 
>> > >>>>>> to support G.709v3. (2) that
> 
>> > >>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3 define a different
> 
>> > >>>>>> Switching Cap field value for each ODUk, and that it
> 
>> > >>>>>> state that the value corresponding to the signal type
> 
>> > >>>>>> identified in the #stages=0 of the ISCP be set. (Without
> 
>> > >>>>>> any other changes to the current definition of ISCD.)
> 
>> > >>>>>> (3) that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 be
> 
>> > >>>>>> updated to match above.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> To keep thinks generic, we probably should use TDM-1
> 
>> > >>>>>> through TDM-n
> 
>> > >>>> as
> 
>> > >>>>>> the new Switching Capability Types, but this is a
> 
>> > >>>>>> secondary
> 
>> > >>>> discussion.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> Comments?
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> Lou
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> PS While the above is an important change, it doesn't
> 
>> > >> significantly
> 
>> > >>>>>> impact encoding and won't take much text to make the
> 
>> > >>>>>> actual
> 
>> > >> change,
> 
>> > >>>> so
> 
>> > >>>>>> this is a discussion that can continue until Paris if we
> 
>> > >>>>>> really
> 
>> > >> need
> 
>> > >>>> a
> 
>> > >>>>>> face to face to resolve the discussion.
> 
>> > >>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>> On 11/23/2011 1:18 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Hi CCAMP,
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> During the OTN OSPF draft presentation at the IETF
> 
>> > >>>>>>> meeting in
> 
>> > >>>> Taipei
> 
>> > >>>>>> two
> 
>> > >>>>>>> comments were raised with respect to the following
> 
>> > >>>>>>> issues:
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> - Issue 1: Using different switching caps for each ODU
> 
>> > >>>>>>> type
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> - Issue 2: Type 2 (unres bandwidth for variable
> 
>> > >>>>>>> containers) and
> 
>> > >>>> Type
> 
>> > >>>>>> 3
> 
>> > >>>>>>> (MAX LSP bandwidth foe variable containers always used
> 
>> > >>>>>>> in tandem?
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom
> 
>> > >>>>>>> most ODUk of
> 
>> > >>>> the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the ISCD.
> 
>> > >>>> After
> 
>> > >>>>>> a
> 
>> > >>>>>>> quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the idea
> 
>> > >>>>>>> was to
> 
>> > >> reject
> 
>> > >>>>>> the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> meaning of the Switching Capability field. (even if
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the definition of PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> meaning of the switching capability field)
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> WRT issue 2: it is analyzed in section 5.3 of the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> draft (version
> 
>> > >> -
> 
>> > >>>>>> 00).
> 
>> > >>>>>>> I'm copying it below for your convenience
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> In this example the advertisement of an ODUflex->ODU3
> 
>> > >> hierarchy
> 
>> > >>>> is
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> shown. In case of ODUflex advertisement the MAX LSP
> 
>> > >>>>>>> bandwidth
> 
>> > >>>>>> needs
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> to be advertised but in some cases also information
> 
>> > >>>>>>> about the
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Unreserved bandwidth could be useful. The amount of
> 
>> > >> Unreserved
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> bandwidth does not give a clear indication of how many
> 
>> > >>>>>>> ODUflex
> 
>> > >>>> LSP
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> can be set up either at the MAX LSP Bandwidth or at
> 
>> > >>>>>>> different
> 
>> > >>>>>> rates,
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> as it gives no information about the spatial
> 
>> > >>>>>>> allocation of the
> 
>> > >>>>>> free
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> TSs.
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth
> 
>> > >>>>>>> could be
> 
>> > >>>>>> useful
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> during the path computation process, as shown in the
> 
>> > >>>>>>> following
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B)
> 
>> > >>>>>>> with MAX
> 
>> > >>>> LSP
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In case 50Gbps of
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Unreserved
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B
> 
>> > >>>>>>> and 3
> 
>> > >>>> ODUflex
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> LSPs of 10 GBps each, have to be restored, for sure
> 
>> > >>>>>>> only one
> 
>> > >> can
> 
>> > >>>>>> be
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> restored along Link B and it is probable (but not
> 
>> > >>>>>>> sure) that
> 
>> > >> two
> 
>> > >>>>>> of
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> them can be restored along Link A.
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Early proposal was to have, in the case of variable
> 
>> > >>>>>>> containers advertisements (i.e. ODUflex), the MAX LSP
> 
>> > >>>>>>> bandwidth TLV (Type 3)
> 
>> > >>>> as
> 
>> > >>>>>> a
> 
>> > >>>>>>> mandatory piece of information and the Unreserved
> 
>> > >>>>>>> bandiwdth TLV
> 
>> > >>>> (Type
> 
>> > >>>>>> 2)
> 
>> > >>>>>>> as an optional piece of information.
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> The comment received is that optional information can
> 
>> > >>>>>>> lead to interworking issues and the counter proposal
> 
>> > >>>>>>> was to have both
> 
>> > >>>> pieces
> 
>> > >>>>>> of
> 
>> > >>>>>>> information as mandatory and, as a consequence, merge
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the two
> 
>> > >> TLVs
> 
>> > >>>>>> into
> 
>> > >>>>>>> a single one.
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> We'd like to hear the opinion of the WG on both issues
> 
>> > >>>>>>> before
> 
>> > >>>>>> proceeding
> 
>> > >>>>>>> with any modification to the document.
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Daniele
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> *DANIELE CECCARELLI * *System & Technology - DU IP &
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Broadband*
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Via L.Calda, 5 Genova, Italy Phone [phone]
> 
>> > >>>>>>> Mobile [phone] [e-mail]
> 
>> > >>>>>>> www.ericsson.com
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and
> 
>> > >>>>>>> receive
> 
>> > >> email
> 
>> > >>>> on
> 
>> > >>>>>>> the basis of the term set out at
> 
>> > >> www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
> 
>> > >>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >>>>>>>
> 
>> > >
> 
>> > > _______________________________________________ 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
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> The information contained in this message may be privileged
> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
> ============================================================
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp