Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt
Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Thu, 16 June 2011 20:46 UTC
Return-Path: <leeyoung@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 A1B0D21F8477 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 xfaJRRnbCY9p for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC1021F8475 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMW00KD3HPSVT@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:46:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMW00EO1HPSGK@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:46:40 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:46:41 -0700
Received: from DFWEML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::c52a:9e19:87eb:4531]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:46:40 -0700
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:46:40 +0000
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <D5EABC6FDAFDAA47BC803114C68AABF2027CAC27@DEMUEXC012.nsn-intra.net>
X-Originating-IP: [10.192.11.62]
To: "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com>, ext Greg Bernstein <gregb@grotto-networking.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E170C62F931@DFWEML501-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_UAdAkJp4qGRYNJI+f0gbJw)"
Content-language: en-US
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt
Thread-index: AQHMKy7wF/Jk2YXkdkS+Ik/0p3cqT5TAbmVQ
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <CCBFBB7025DF984494DEC3285C058152129673243E@FRMRSSXCHMBSA1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4DF654C6.3070304@grotto-networking.com> <D5EABC6FDAFDAA47BC803114C68AABF2027CAC27@DEMUEXC012.nsn-intra.net>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:46:45 -0000
Hi Cyril, I think your analysis below is very theoretical and a bit out of reality in WSON node configuration. We are dealing with wavelength level so that OTUk level is transparent to WSON. In typical optical switch node configuration in WSON, we don't simply mix up all possible kinds of regenerators per each modulation type. It is true that we have many modulation types for each rate and the model should support all possibility. But this does not mean we have all "10 types" at the same time in a node design. As you know, regenerator is one of the most expensive WSON elements and having many types in a node is not economical and not realistic. As far as my understanding of node design, we don't have such thing as you said in your email to support 10+ different types of regenerators in a node. In a typical commercially deployed WSON switching node, we have one rate (e.g., 10G or 40G, or possibly others) and one regenerator type for each rate. If we have multi-rate support, we may have two rates and thus two regenerators in a typical WSON switching node. I would be interested in the node design diagram that supports 10+ different regenerators at the same time. I haven't seen such one myself yet. Please also note that the WSON model has to support transparent node configuration, which we don't have "regen" element. Best Regards, Young ________________________________ From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:36 AM To: ext Greg Bernstein; ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt Hi Greg, CCAMPers, Regarding point (2), using one regen type per OTUk (k in [[1..4]]), and 2 type of laser module per reach makes already 8 type of oeo properties. Adding slightly different hw types (i.e old board with old modulation and a more recent with DP-QPSK) makes an easy 10 types for a big node. Without going into product families this sounded reasonable (for instance a typical product would indicate supports for 10 and 40g with different modulation, so lets say 2 sub-board type, which makes 6 regen type); The introduction of OTU4 and later OTU5 will increase the types of regenerator supported. The size expansion is indeed related to the number of regenerator type, resource blocks contain connectivity, oeo-feature and how the blocks are grouped. The other point would indeed clarify the document, the setup of resource pools/blocks is shown in Figure 1, a resource pool aggregating the connectivity for several resource blocks. Best regards. From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Greg Bernstein Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:20 PM To: ccamp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt Hi Pierre and draft authors, can you provide: (1) Diagrams of the example switches particularly with respect to the structure of the resource pools/blocks. (2) Explanation of why so many different types (not number) of regenerators in an optical node. You site 5 different types for a small node and 10 for a large node. Can you point to a product family? I would think 0-1 types of regenerators for a small node and at maybe 2 for a large node or nodes that deal with long haul and metro types modulations. (3) Can you provide the example encodings such as done in the appendix of the encoding document so we can understand where the expansion is taking place. It seems that the size expansions is directly related to the number of regenerator types, but hard to tell from this document. Are there any other WSON interested parties that have a need for so many regenerator types? Cheers Greg B. On 6/10/2011 7:19 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote: Hi Ccampers, During Prague meeting I was asked to provide a draft detailing the solution we were presenting then concerning OSPF-TE extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (see point 10 of ccamp minutes). Julien, Giovanni, Cyril and I have tackled this work of providing a complete description of the solution with commonalities and deltas from the existing solution held in the following drafts: - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-11 - draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-04 - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-00 - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11 - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-04 Feedback from the working group is welcome. To trigger this feedback, this draft holds inside section 5 a numerical study on the amount of static and dynamic information to be flooded. This study was conducted on various typical WSON nodes and compares the size of the LSAs between the two solutions. Regards, - Pierre _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
- [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification for draft-pe… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification for draf… Greg Bernstein
- [CCAMP] Review of draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oe… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-… Leeyoung
- [CCAMP] Moving the WSON discussion forward (Was R… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Moving the WSON discussion forward (W… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] Moving the WSON discussion forward (W… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Moving the WSON discussion forward (W… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Moving the WSON discussion forward (W… Greg Bernstein
- [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource pool e… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix to d… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- [CCAMP] Change 3: Reduction of the scope of Resou… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 3: Reduction of the scope of R… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… Greg Bernstein
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… t.petch
- Re: [CCAMP] Change 1: Introduction of resource po… Greg Bernstein