Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type

[Rajan Rao <[e-mail]>]

G-PID perhaps?

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Lou Berger; John E Drake
Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type

Using the encoding was one of the possible suggestions.

Indeed it has impacts on the routing and it might be worth avoiding it, but another solution is preferrable wrt relying on the Label Length (which might change for several reasons). I would prefer not to put a requirement on the Label lenght only because it is needed to retrieve the adaptation type.

Other proposals are welcome. I had a chat with John this morning and he was proposing the utilization of a new field (even a single bit). That could be a viale option for me. Since we're removing the Tolerance from the traffic parameters we're going to have room for a new field.

BR
Daniele

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: mercoledì 13 marzo 2013 19.51
>To: Lou Berger; John E Drake
>Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP ([e-mail]); Daniele 
>Ceccarelli
>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>
>Lou,
>
>The new encoding has implications in routing(new ISCDs).  I think we 
>can minimize the impact using the two fields
>mentioned in my email below.   To be specific,
>
>For the case highlighted in the slide,  the Encoding is AMP when Signal 
>Type = ODU1  in traffic spec Length Field  = 8 in  Label
>
>Thanks
>Rajan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:54 PM
>To: John E Drake
>Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 
>Daniele Ceccarelli
>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>
>John,
>
>See below.
>
>On 3/13/2013 6:40 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> Lou,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I must have been asleep but I don't remember hearing of an issue.
>
>No problem, looked like a few others had some trouble getting moving 
>this AM too.
>
>>  It
>> was my understanding that AMP and GMP both use G.709 encoding in the 
>> data plane, so why would we want to make what appears to be an 
>> artificial distinction?
>
>This was covered on slide 3 of Danielle's presentation.  
>He/They can provide additional details/justification.
>
>Lou
>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Irrespectively Yours,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *From:*Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:27 PM
>> *To:* John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Rajan Rao
>> *Cc:* CCAMP ([e-mail]); Daniele Ceccarelli
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>> Do you have an alternate proposal on how to address the issue, or do 
>> you just see an issue?
>> 
>> (If the former, the onus will fall on you to provide one. If the 
>> latter, it'll fall to Sergio And Danielle to recap the presented
>> issue.)
>> 
>> Lou
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On March 13, 2013 6:16:46 PM John E Drake wrote:
>> 
>>     Hi,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     I don't think this is a good idea and I don't see any
>reason for it.
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Irrespectively Yours,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     John
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *BELOTTI,
>SERGIO (SERGIO)
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:53 AM
>>     *To:* Rajan Rao
>>     *Cc:* CCAMP ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>>     *Subject:* [CCAMP] R: G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Rao,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     it is a proposal: so you should read:  "encoding type can 
>> indicate.
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Regards
>> 
>>     Sergio
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     *Belotti Sergio-  System Architect*
>> 
>>     *ALCATE-LUCENT  Optics Division*
>> 
>>     via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy
>> 
>>     phone [phone]
>> 
>>     
>> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> 
>>     *Da:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *Per conto di *Rajan Rao
>>     *Inviato:* mercoledì 13 marzo 2013 14.40
>>     *A:* CCAMP ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>>     *Oggetto:* [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Daniele,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     The presentation slide#3 says:  "encoding type indicates AMP or
>>     GMP".   I don't think this is the case.  We use  G.709 ODUk as
>>     encoding type.  There is no explicit indication of AMP or GMP
>>     there.  Are you proposing to change this?
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Note that AMP/GMP can be inferred from Signal Type in
>traffic param
>>     & Length field ( = 8) in the label.
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Thanks
>>     Rajan
>> 
>