Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 01:30 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 0E58221F88AE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.458, 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 NOzkwVu-pMF7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F0D21F8477 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:30:29 -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 APL79363; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 01:30:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:29:35 +0000
Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:30:28 +0000
Received: from SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.16]) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.155]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:25 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: Fred Gruman <fgruman@gmail.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
Thread-Index: AQHOAJZIlM0EpcpCsEW1cJUYjOCmwZhlxtjggANpjYCAAbfq8IAANqWAgAAFLoCAADerAIAAL12AgACGo8A=
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:30:24 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83585B82A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83585B3CE@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D3B3CCD0@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E145055F2@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <511189F0.8030709@labn.net> <CA+CjX-pvimLXM_q46VKh8JAsxLfP32NvCVo2Mr4nUqmYZoY6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+CjX-pvimLXM_q46VKh8JAsxLfP32NvCVo2Mr4nUqmYZoY6fQ@mail.gmail.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83585B82ASZXEML552MBXchi_"
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 01:30:32 -0000

Hi Fred,

You are correct.





Best Regards

Fatai

From: Fred Gruman [mailto:fgruman@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Lou Berger
Cc: John E Drake; 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

Hi Lou,
I'm not sure if you are looking at the latest version of G.709 (2/2012), but ODUflex(GFP) now states +/- 100 ppm in Tables 7-2 and 7-8.
Although the client tolerance may be less than 100 ppm, under failure conditions, the local clock tolerance for ODUflex(GFP) maintenance signal generation is 100 ppm.  Thus the ODUflex(GFP) services would needs to support the worse case, which is the maintenance signal (and thus would always be 100 ppm).

Fred


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:

John,

See question in-line below.

On 2/5/2013 2:19 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> 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.
Great.  Thanks for being clear on which option you support.

> 'Per [G.874.1/2011] (or whatever is
> the correct reference) Tolerance MUST be set to 100 ppm.'
>
Is this correct (always 100ppm)?  Fatai/Sergio referred to table 7-2 in
G709 which has 20ppm for most signal types and 100ppm for others.  And
it seems there is some text that got dropped in the latest rev of
G.874.1 (from and earlier amendment).

In your role as ITU-T SG15 liaison manager, can you either figure out
what the right text & reference should be or propose a liaison that we
can send asking the ITU-T for whatever information we need to close this
issue/document?

Thanks,
Lou

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