Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix to describe pools accessibility (was Re: Moving the WSON discussion forward)

[Greg Bernstein <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cyril, see comments below.
Greg
On 7/14/2011 12:48 AM, Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
>
> There is one thing that really bother me is to have resource block IDs
> with 16 bits
> With few motivation and without any definition in the WG-drafts if they
> are stable or not.
--> This allows for 65,536 resources per node.  I'm not sure what you 
mean by "stable". The assignments of resource block ID's to resources is 
provisioned  by the equipment. This assignment would be relatively 
"static", i.e., would not change with LSP creation or removal.
> The only statement I have seen is :
> "The RB identifier represents the ID of the resource block which is a 16
> bit integer."
>
> I would expect a 32 bit stable ID that match existing IDs assignments in
> nodes.
Which ID's in nodes?  Link IDs can take three different forms IPv4, IPv6 
and link local identifiers per GMPLS/MPLS standards.
> If a 32 bit ID is used the connectivity matrix as defined in
> general constraint can be used.
--> The connectivity matrix doesn't work with IDs of any kind. It works 
with "Link Sets".
>   Your opinion is that it should be a
> separate TLV in the WSON information, My opinion is that it could go in
> the general node connectivity, because it's part of the node
> connectivity. In the last couple of mail this did not change, I would be
> interested to hear other people opinions.
>
> Coming back to draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode resource block ids, this
> 16 ID was introduced in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-01 (March
> 2009), I have looked in the mailing list (only the web interface) and I
> did not see any justification nor discussion on that topic. I may have
> missed something, Could you indicate :
>    - should those ID be stable or not?
--> What do you mean by stable?
>    - What is the motivation behind those 16 bit IDs?
--> Saves space; 65,536 resource block in a switch seems like plenty.
>    - What is the problem having 32 bit node unique ids?
--> Uses more space; Doesn't solve any problems that we know of.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of ext Greg Bernstein
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:09 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix to describe
>> pools accessibility (was Re: Moving the WSON discussion forward)
>>
>> Hi Pierre, as previously stated:
>>
>> This change mixes information from "general constraints" with  "wson
>> specific constraints" and hence goes against the decision made by the
>> CCAMP WG at the March 2009 San Francisco IETF. This proposed change
>> does not result in any space savings and results in an undesirable
>> mixing of separate concepts.  All current WSON drafts include
>> separation of relatively "static" from more "dynamic" information,
>> hence this change is unnecessary. Hence you can take it off the table.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On 7/13/2011 8:44 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:
>>> Hi Greg and CCAMPer's,
>>>
>>> As in the preceding mail which summarized the 3 main changes
> proposed
>>> by draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo, become too big to be easily
> read
>> through, I've been splitting the 3 points in 3 different threads, this
>> one deals with change 2:
>>> Use of the connectivity matrix defined inside the node entity in
>> order to describe connectivity constraints between node-external links
>> and the resource pools.
>>> MOTIVATION: a/ to gather static information inside node entity (for
>>> OSPF-TE inside a LSA never flooded upon LSP updates). b/ to limit
> the
>>> number of connectivity representations introduced by current
>>> extensions (draft-ietf-rwa-info proposes similar TLVs in different
>>> LSAs)
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> [SNIP]
>>>
>>>> -snip-
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ===================================================
>> Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>


-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]