Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Hi,

This seems like future-proofing for the sake of future proofing.

I think that the proposed CS value gives us 6.25 (recall, we already had 12.5).

If 3.125 or some "odd" value like 17.937 becomes a requirement in the future we
could define a new CS value to mean "CS is encoded in bytes 6 and 7 of the
label" and then utilise the two currently reserved bytes. That is how we might
do it, but I would be less than enthusiastic about making this provision now on
the theory that we might need it one day.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Mårtensson [mailto:Jonas.Martensson@acreo.se]
> Sent: 05 February 2014 09:18
> To: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe); adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Daniel King';
> 'CCAMP'
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
Switching
> Routers
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't know if this has been proposed and discussed already but why not also
> add a field indicating slot width granularity (similar to the C.S. field)
where today
> the only defined value would correspond to 12.5 GHz. This would accommodate a
> potentially finer granularity in the future (when technologies improve as
Gabriele
> points out).
> 
> /Jonas
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele Maria
> > Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> > Sent: den 31 januari 2014 16:47
> > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
> > Subject: 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp