Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification fordraft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-03.txt

[Greg Bernstein <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cyril, can you furnish diagrams of the optical nodes, and the 
encodings chosen when using the current WG documents. From the Peloso 
draft there is insufficient information to see where the encoding 
numbers quoted came from.  The current 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-11.txt makes it relatively efficient to 
deal with lots of different regenerator types. In section 4.1 "Resource 
Block Information Sub-TLV" is defined as:

0123
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RB Set Field |
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|E| Reserved|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Input Modulation Type List Sub-Sub-TLV(opt)|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Input FEC Type List Sub-Sub-TLV(opt)|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Input Client Signal Type Sub-Sub-TLV(opt)|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        More resource description |
::

The RB set field in this sub-TLV allows you to specify once all the 
properties of a class of regenerators and apply it to a set of resource 
blocks. Hence this scales as the number of regenerator types not as the 
number of resource blocks.  Hence the existing WSON encoding should 
solve your problem of many types of regenerators within an optical node.

Without further information I can't see how the Peloso draft gets the 
numbers it quotes for the size of the information to be distributed. In 
addition it doesn't appear that the Peloso draft uses the OSPF group's 
recommended practice of multiple LSA instances. But once again 
insufficient information is given to justify the numbers. If there is a 
problem with encoding for a particular switch case I'm sure we can 
quickly find a solution that has a minimal impact on the existing WSON 
related WG drafts, but first we really need to understand the optical 
node and the cause (if any) the the encoding expansion.

Greg B.


On 6/15/2011 12:35 AM, Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>
> 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:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *ext Greg Bernstein
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 8:20 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *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.
>
--snip --

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