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
>