Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 01:05 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 8D99C21F8959 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.611, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Z906Ci5++Y5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6E721F8A56 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id APL78297; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 01:04:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:04:05 +0000
Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:04:58 +0800
Received: from SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.16]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.94]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:04:51 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
Thread-Index: AQHOAJZIlM0EpcpCsEW1cJUYjOCmwZhlxtjggANpjYCAAbfq8IAANqWAgAAFLoCAAOZ1QA==
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:04:50 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83585B7C9@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83585B3CE@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D3B3CCD0@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E145055F2@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E145055F2@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
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, 06 Feb 2013 01:05:03 -0000

Hi all,

Interesting. I support this good idea.




Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:19 AM
To: Zafar Ali (zali); Fatai Zhang; Lou Berger
Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding

Snipped, comment inline

Irrespectively Yours,

John

> >    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
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >  |  Signal Type  |       N       |        Reserved       |
> >  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >  |              NVC           |      Multiplier (MT)     |
> >  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >  |                      Bit_Rate                       |
> >  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> I just wonder are we not better off keeping Tolerance field in
> signaling and adding a statement in v7 that this field is hardcoded to
> 100ppm.
> 
> This has advantage of interworking with earlier draft implementations
> and is also flexible for various (future/ unknown) client signal types.
> I.e., we use the same encoding as defined thus far in the document
> (copying from
> v6):
> 
>       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
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |  Signal Type  |       N       |           Tolerance           |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                            Bit_Rate                           |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> And state that Tolerance MUST be set to 100 ppm.


JD: This is a very good idea.  'Per [G.874.1/2011] (or whatever is the correct reference) Tolerance MUST be set to 100 ppm.'

 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards...Zafar
> 
> ><snip>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp