Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Fri, 02 December 2011 08:52 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 9F4D821F990B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:52:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 TUr5nYbhCSyv for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:52:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B184E21F990D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:52:00 -0800 (PST)
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 <0LVK00L2PJAHLJ@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:51:53 +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 <0LVK0018IJ9U73@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:51:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AFJ79700; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:51:52 +0800
Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:51:43 +0800
Received: from SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.92]) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.161]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0800
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 08:51:46 +0000
From: Zhangfatai <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.70.76.157]
To: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Message-id: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Thread-index: AQHMsMyIiDQ2ZQ5qCU2IIpJar2pMIZXIPN2w
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED64A32.8060707@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CA99D@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4ED65D2D.2040400@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CADAB@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 08:52:02 -0000
Hi all, I agree that there is no need to overload Switching Cap. Thanks Fatai -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) Sent: 2011年12月2日 16:29 To: John E Drake Cc: CCAMP Subject: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) 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: +39 0396863033 Sergio.Belotti@alcatel-lucent.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 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:lberger@labn.net] > 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:lberger@labn.net] > >> 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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 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 +390106002512 > >>>>> Mobile +393346725750 > >>>>> daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com > >>>>> 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] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Julien Meuric
- [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … neil.2.harrison
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake