Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 20 December 2011 20:05 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 7467D21F8A55 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:05:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -93.77
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-93.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fi4NrglLPPot for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.21.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BD221F8A4E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10351 invoked by uid 0); 20 Dec 2011 20:04:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2011 20:04:48 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=JSko8o4NmeFnvm6YYSAMctsjKmUMfVasPg9fSQyf+20=; b=m+0ycNgUlrnFJY75UXxd+XqikOjMww5f8XM77u55XpXjTYednDvTdL+B961k21HjrrcF470OevFGRqftWBMZMX9vc/AoJmumDv1tJWkTAsoYvn6g0RIfgKkLQr0eBzBG;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Rd5vc-0004OR-4u; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:48 -0700
Message-ID: <4EF0EA5F.2030108@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:04:47 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4EDE3E19.6010303@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18AB@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EF0A18F.4080000@orange.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517AFD@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819BA8E25@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517B62@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2B010A0998FB37@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net> <4EF0B788.7020700@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517BEA@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0C1C8.3010004@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517DF0@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517DF0@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ccamp-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 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: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:05:12 -0000
John, Thanks for the humor. I'm sure it's nice to vent. Lou On 12/20/2011 1:43 PM, John E Drake wrote: > If you are saying that we are free to ignore you, them I am fine and I think we are done with the OTN discussion. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:12 AM >> To: John E Drake >> Cc: Sadler, Jonathan B.; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP; ccamp- >> ads@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 >> (Issue 1/2) >> >>> 2) I think both Lou and Julien are close to abusing their positions >> as WG chairs >> >> John, >> So this is an interesting statement. It implies a WG chair is >> not >> allowed to take an technical positions within a WG that they chair. >> This is, of course, pure nonsense. >> >> If you really believe that I (or the PCE WG chair for that matter) have >> acted in a manner inconsistent with RFC 2026 or RFC 2418, I strongly >> encourage you to follow standard IETF process in this regard. >> >> Lou >> >> On 12/20/2011 11:50 AM, John E Drake wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have several observations: >>> >>> 1) We are just repeating ourselves >>> >>> 2) I think both Lou and Julien are close to abusing their positions >> as WG chairs >>> >>> 3) There seems to be a preponderance of opinion to go with the >> current design >>> >>> Therefore, I would like to call the question and have Deborah decide >> what our design direction is to be. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:28 AM >>>> To: Sadler, Jonathan B. >>>> Cc: John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 >>>> (Issue 1/2) >>>> >>>> Jonathan, >>>> This point is precisely (one of) the key reasons I put forward >>>> the >>>> proposal on multiple SC types. >>>> >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> On 12/20/2011 11:12 AM, Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> While each ODU layer is a single layer network, how the ODUs >> interact >>>>> with each other (e.g. placing an ODU0 into an ODU1) generates a >>>>> multi-layer network. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This detail is especially important when dealing with multi-stage >>>>> multiplexing (eg ODU0 over ODU1 over ODU2) AND dealing with >> different >>>>> adaptation styles (e.g. 2.5G TS vs 1.2G TS) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CCAMP did get a liaison from ITU-T last year pointing these details >>>> out >>>>> (LS221). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan Sadler >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *John E Drake >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:02 AM >>>>> *To:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) >>>>> *Cc:* CCAMP >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF >> 82 >>>>> (Issue 1/2) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sergio, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Excellent. Jonathan, check this out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) [mailto:sergio.belotti@alcatel- >>>> lucent.com] >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:59 AM >>>>> *To:* John E Drake >>>>> *Cc:* CCAMP; Zhangfatai; Julien Meuric >>>>> *Subject:* R: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 >>>>> (Issue 1/2) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> Just to emphasize what you've already well mentioned about multi- >>>> layer >>>>> in OTN. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is what reports the Recommendation representing Optical >>>> Transport >>>>> Network architecture , G.872. >>>>> >>>>> ..... >>>>> >>>>> "Since the resources that support these topological components >>>> support a >>>>> heterogeneous assembly of ODUs, the ODU layer is modelled as a >> single >>>>> layer network that is independent of bit-rate. The ODU bit-rate is >> a >>>>> parameter that allows the number of Tributary Slots (TS) for the >> ODU >>>>> link connection to be determined." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sergio >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>>>> Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per >> conto >>>> di >>>>> John E Drake >>>>> Inviato: martedì 20 dicembre 2011 16.14 >>>>> A: Julien Meuric; Zhangfatai >>>>> Cc: CCAMP >>>>> Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 >>>>> (Issue 1/2) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Julien, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know how many times we want to go over this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you might expect, Switching Capability enables path computation >> to >>>> be >>>>> aware of regions in which there are different switching >> capabilities. >>>>> It was never intended to delineate sub-regions (layers) within >> those >>>>> regions. In particular, nowhere in the entire body of the >>>>> Multi-Layer/Multi-Region work is this capability mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Further, it is not used in this manner in SDH/SONET which, along >> with >>>>> OTN, is the best example of a multi-layer network with which we >> have >>>> to >>>>> deal and the last time we had this discussion, prior to Maastricht, >>>> it >>>>> was stated that the ITU has deprecated the use of the concept of >>>>> multi-layer in its modeling of OTN networks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we please agree that PSC 1-4 was an aberration that can be >>>>> attributed to inexperience and just erase it from our collective >>>> memory? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf >>>>> >>>>>> Of Julien Meuric >>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:54 AM >>>>> >>>>>> To: Zhangfatai >>>>> >>>>>> Cc: CCAMP >>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 >>>>> >>>>>> (Issue 1/2) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Fatai. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> About the IGP, I believe we agree on several things: >>>>> >>>>>> - we are dealing with the ODUk layers within the OTN >>>>> >>>>>> technology/regions; >>>>> >>>>>> - the ISCD is an appropriate place to put the information on ODUk >>>>> >>>>>> capabilities of nodes. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> What we disagree on: >>>>> >>>>>> - using the term "extension" to refer to encoding the hierarchy >>>> level >>>>> >>>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>> the SC field: the _fact_ is that PSC-[1~4] are part of existing >> RFCs >>>>> >>>>>> (e.g. 4203); >>>>> >>>>>> - selecting the SC field as an information on the hierarchy level. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This leaves us with an open discussion on the latter. We already >>>> have 2 >>>>> >>>>>> options on the table for the ISCD in IGPs: >>>>> >>>>>> a) multiple SC values, >>>>> >>>>>> b)"Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well)". >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> First of all, I do not believe the original intend of SC alone was >>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> reflect the notion of region: xSC acronyms may map to "regions", >> but >>>>> >>>>>> from a codepoint perspective we can have several values behind a >>>> single >>>>> >>>>>> xSC (e.g. x=P). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Then you propose to use the "[OTN] Signal Type": as opposed to a) >>>>> >>>>>> above, >>>>> >>>>>> this is a new extension, created in >>>>> >>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-00. As emphasized by Kireeti, >> the >>>> SC >>>>> >>>>>> field should allow to constrain path computation into a range or a >>>>> >>>>>> sub-part of the hierarchy (without necessarily specifying a full >>>> list). >>>>> >>>>>> The I-D uses a single SC (OTN-TDM) for the whole OTN, which means >>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> SC >>>>> >>>>>> field is useless to prune the network graph when routing an ODUk: >>>> even >>>>> >>>>>> for pruning, a CSFP implementation needs to parse some OTN- >> specific >>>>> >>>>>> sub-TLVs. Hence I prefer the "old-fashion" approach which >> represent >>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> hierarchy information at a higher level in the IGP, like it was >> done >>>>> >>>>>> for >>>>> >>>>>> PBB-TE (RFC 6060). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Le 06/12/2011 20:21, Zhangfatai a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Julien, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I agree the requirement that you mentioned, but it can be >>>> resovled >>>>> >>>>>>> without extending Switching Cap. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> It is known that there are two cases described in RFC5212 and >>>>> >>>>>>> RFC5339, one is MRN, another one is MLN. In RFC5212, it says: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> ======================================================================= >>>>> >>>>>> ======== >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thus, a control plane region, identified by its switching type >> value >>>>> >>>>>> (e.g., TDM), can be sub-divided into smaller-granularity component >>>>> >>>>>> networks based on "data plane switching layers". The Interface >>>>> >>>>>> Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202], identifying the >>>>> >>>>>> interface switching capability (ISC), the encoding type, and the >>>>> >>>>>> switching bandwidth granularity, enables the characterization of >> the >>>>> >>>>>> associated layers. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> In this document, we define a multi-layer network (MLN) to be a >>>>> >>>>>>> Traffic Engineering (TE) domain comprising multiple data plane >>>>> >>>>>>> switching layers either of the same ISC (e.g., TDM) or different >>>> ISC >>>>> >>>>>>> (e.g., TDM and PSC) and controlled by a single GMPLS control >>>> plane >>>>> >>>>>>> instance. We further define a particular case of MLNs. A multi- >>>>> >>>>>>> region network (MRN) is defined as a TE domain supporting at >>>> least >>>>> >>>>>>> two different switching types (e.g., PSC and TDM), either hosted >>>> on >>>>> >>>>>>> the same device or on different ones, and under the control of a >>>>> >>>>>>> single GMPLS control plane instance. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> ======================================================================= >>>>> >>>>>> ============== >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, for MRN case, we can use Switching Cap to differentiate >>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> different "layers"; for MLN case (same ISC with different >>>> granularity), >>>>> >>>>>> we can use Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well) >> to >>>>> >>>>>> differentiate the different granularity. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> So, come back to your question, it can be achived by using >>>> Switching >>>>> >>>>>>> Cap&Encoding Type&Signal Type to identify the granularity >>>> requested >>>>> >>>>>>> in OTN networks(e.g., this information can be carried in >>>>> >>>>>>> SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object) . >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Lastly, in my opinion, if there is no issue based on the >> existing >>>>> >>>>>>> mechnism or definition without extending Switching Cap, I don't >>>>> >>>>>> think >>>>> >>>>>>> we need to extend Switching Cap. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Fatai >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________________ 发件人: Julien Meuric >>>>> >>>>>>> [julien.meuric@orange.com] 发送时间: 2011年12月7日 0:08 到: >>>> Zhangfatai >>>>> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>>>> CCAMP; pce@ietf.org 主题: Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations >>>>> >>>>>> post >>>>> >>>>>>> IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Fatai. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> As co-author of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, I believe you >>>> will >>>>> >>>>>>> agree on the fact that having a Switching Capability per ODUk >>>> layer >>>>> >>>>>>> would make the use of objects including a Switching Cap field >>>> rather >>>>> >>>>>>> straightforward and enables a fine-grained resource description, >>>>> >>>>>> e.g. >>>>> >>>>>>> in: - REQ-ADAP-CAP object, to precisely identify the type of >>>>> >>>>>>> adaptation requested by a higher layer, or to get a clear >>>> feedback >>>>> >>>>>> on >>>>> >>>>>>> the missing adaptation for unsuccessful path computations; - >>>>> >>>>>>> SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object, to precisely identify the type of >>>>> >>>>>>> server layer within the ERO. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Do not you think that summarizing G.709 by a single Switching >> Cap >>>>> >>>>>>> value would take some capabilities away? What would you suggest >>>> so >>>>> >>>>>> as >>>>> >>>>>>> to achieve the same level of details in that scenario? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Le 02/12/2011 09:51, Zhangfatai a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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) >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>> >>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> The information contained in this message may be privileged >>>>> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader >>>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee >>>>> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the >>>>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, >>>>> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly >>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and >>>>> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [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