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

"Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <ggalimbe@cisco.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ggalimbe@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47CD1A1F58 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:38:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jEz19M5qXKaE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634B31A1F4C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:38:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10506; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391783898; x=1392993498; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Bfp3ZBU5XoKDDP7kYB0z3q81hSSd4iS/juXvTXjOAtE=; b=AwQ+nh23cV23XMhvwyo59gOOGCN60i9IdKWFrkD6CjDnJy3iGnX6nVxr HTVeEj6iHV+6pOc0cDzYdj5730nM5vHkQVEJYrrbrYHm+SYqtlNaasD5h HDea4N5eosPblKPW2IBA1Vs1xOd7hbsdL0W39QYozQTLK1fHGpqf/uGPK 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAAvv9FKtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V75ogQ4WdIIlAQEBBAEBAUYlFwIEAQgRBAEBASciDAsUCQgCBAESiAUNzHIXBI4hBCE6BoQyBIkRjxqSIYFvgT6BaEI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,801,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="18732151"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2014 14:38:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s17EcIip018255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:38:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.227]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:38:17 -0600
From: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <ggalimbe@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Jonas Mårtensson' <Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se>, 'Daniel King' <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
Thread-Index: AQHPHnAcUqnGK5MZTkidP1a0HuaLvAJNiSkeAkml/peYSJRLsII7Bz8AgAAnMwCAAeC7AA==
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:38:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CF1AADF2.57929%ggalimbe@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <012501cf232a$41d3ec80$c57bc580$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.7.130812
x-originating-ip: [144.254.172.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <76EA390D04B3BB4B9F8E1B8385331DF2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:38:20 -0000

AFSIK there are a couple of Optical Module Vendors that can provide finer
granularity (up to 1GHz).
The module are not yet in mass production but working in Lab.

Best Regards, 

Gabriele



Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl


Via Philips, 12
20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>

ggalimbe@cisco.com
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049
















On 2/6/14 11:57 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

>Ah yes, apologies. Ramon has just explained this to me. sorry for being
>thick.
>
>You are talking about the thing that "m" multiplies for the slot width.
>Currently 12.5.
>
>I can see the potential, but (of course) we are again talking about
>future-proofing in a rather speculative way.
>Where do we stand with data plane specs and implementations of this
>hardware?
>
>A
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se]
>> Sent: 06 February 2014 08:37
>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel
>King';
>> 'CCAMP'
>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
>Switching
>> Routers
>> 
>> Hi Adrian,
>> 
>> I'm not talking about defining new CS values. I'm proposing adding a
>>separate
>> SWG (slot width granularity) field to allow for granularities finer
>>than 12.5
>GHz in
>> the future. Maybe this is unnecessarily future-proof and we can deal
>>with it
>> if/when it becomes necessary. Just wanted to bring it up for discussion.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jonas
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
>> > Sent: den 5 februari 2014 23:40
>> > To: Jonas Mårtensson; 'Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)'; 'Daniel
>>King';
>> > 'CCAMP'
>> > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
>>Label
>> > Switching Routers
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This seems like future-proofing for the sake of future proofing.
>> >
>> > I think that the proposed CS value gives us 6.25 (recall, we already
>>had
>> > 12.5).
>> >
>> > If 3.125 or some "odd" value like 17.937 becomes a requirement in the
>>future
>> > we
>> > could define a new CS value to mean "CS is encoded in bytes 6 and 7
>>of the
>> > label" and then utilise the two currently reserved bytes. That is how
>>we
>might
>> > do it, but I would be less than enthusiastic about making this
>>provision now
>> > on
>> > the theory that we might need it one day.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Adrian
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se]
>> > > Sent: 05 February 2014 09:18
>> > > To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); adrian@olddog.co.uk;
>>'Daniel
>> > King';
>> > > 'CCAMP'
>> > > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
>>Label
>> > Switching
>> > > Routers
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I don't know if this has been proposed and discussed already but
>>why not
>> > also
>> > > add a field indicating slot width granularity (similar to the C.S.
>>field)
>> > where today
>> > > the only defined value would correspond to 12.5 GHz. This would
>> accommodate
>> > a
>> > > potentially finer granularity in the future (when technologies
>>improve as
>> > Gabriele
>> > > points out).
>> > >
>> > > /Jonas
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele
>> Maria
>> > > > Galimberti (ggalimbe)
>> > > > Sent: den 31 januari 2014 16:47
>> > > > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
>> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC
>>Label
>> > > > Switching Routers
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Adrian,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for the clarification.
>> > > > If We talk about the the slot with granularity specified by
>>G.694.1
>> > > > To be 12.5GHz, I agree that we have to wait any ITU feedback.
>> > > > On the other hand I don't see any constraint of Spectrum Width
>> > > > Size in G.694.1.  So there is no specification/limitation to m
>>value.
>> > > >
>> > > > In this sense I'd agree with Ramon: why not extend it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Gabriele
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Gabriele Galimberti
>> > > > Technical Leader
>> > > > Cisco Photonics Srl
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Via Philips, 12
>> > > > 20900 - Monza (MI)
>> > > > Italy
>> > > > www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
>> > > >
>> > > > ggalimbe@cisco.com
>> > > > Phone :+39 039 2091462
>> > > > Mobile :+39 335 7481947
>> > > > Fax :+39 039 2092049
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 1/31/14 12:44 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Thoughts?
>> > > > >Adrian
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > >> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>Gabriele
>> > > Maria
>> > > > >> Galimberti (ggalimbe)
>> > > > >> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:35
>> > > > >> To: Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
>> > > > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in
>>LSC
>Label
>> > > > >Switching
>> > > > >> Routers
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Hi Daniel
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I have a change request on the label:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
>> > > > >>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
>>9 0 1
>> > > > >>    
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >>    |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier      |               n
>> > |
>> > > > >>    
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >>    |       m     |                     Reserved
>>    |
>> > > > >>    
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'd like to extend the m value range to 16 bits to have the
>possibility
>> > > > >>to
>> > > > >> Allocate the whole C-band spectrum if needed.
>> > > > >> With 8 bits we can allocate only 60% of it.
>> > > > >> Another reason is that when new technologies will be available
>>the
>> > > > >> Slot Width Granularity may increase (to 6.25GHz or better).
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> So the proposed change is:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> 0                   1                   2                   3
>> > > > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
>>1
>> > > > >> 
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >> |Grid | C.S. |    Identifier    |                n
>> |
>> > > > >> 
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >> |                m              |            Reserved
>> |
>> > > > >> 
>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>  m field = 16 bits.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Best Regards,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Gabriele
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Gabriele Galimberti
>> > > > >> Technical Leader
>> > > > >> Cisco Photonics Srl
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Via Philips, 12
>> > > > >> 20900 - Monza (MI)
>> > > > >> Italy
>> > > > >> www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ggalimbe@cisco.com
>> > > > >> Phone :+39 039 2091462
>> > > > >> Mobile :+39 335 7481947
>> > > > >> Fax :+39 039 2092049
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On 1/29/14 6:06 PM, "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >Hi CCAMP'rs,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before
>>London, but
>the
>> > > > >> >only
>> > > > >> >changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status
>>section as
>> > per
>> > > > >> >RFC6982.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no
>>further
>> > > > >> >technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has
>>been
>> > > > >>picked
>> > > > >> >up
>> > > > >> >by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback
>>from the
>> > > > >> >working
>> > > > >> >group:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >- Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft?
>> > > > >> >- Are you happy with the label format described?
>> > > > >> >- What do you think the next steps should be for this draft?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Thanks,
>> > > > >> >Dan (for the authors)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >_______________________________________________
>> > > > >> >CCAMP mailing list
>> > > > >> >CCAMP@ietf.org
>> > > > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > >> CCAMP mailing list
>> > > > >> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > CCAMP mailing list
>> > > > CCAMP@ietf.org
>> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>