[CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues
"BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 07:46 UTC
Return-Path: <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 0954A21F8FB3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 00:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 W7y+Rp6cjWrY for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 00:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C6821F9164 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 00:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-63.lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r4D7jfjG002193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 May 2013 02:45:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r4D7jcoi029778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 May 2013 03:45:40 -0400
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:45:39 -0400
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.233]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:45:27 +0200
From: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: Closing G.709 open issues
Thread-Index: AQHOT4qqUl1mFyMbR0uUaEgIgIORFZkCvCzw
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:45:27 +0000
Message-ID: <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4802BCBD@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B000@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518BAB17.9090807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C67D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <518BDAFF.40706@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B39A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518CED28.30303@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B943@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B943@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: it-IT
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:46:07 -0000
Hi Fatai, I agree with you, for both point 1 and 2. Best Regards Sergio Belotti Sergio- System Architect ALCATE-LUCENT Optics Division via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy phone +39 (039) 6863033 -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] Inviato: lunedì 13 maggio 2013 5.33 A: Lou Berger Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org Oggetto: RE: Closing G.709 open issues Hi Lou, I think you have two major points here. (1) Do you really need 3 G-PID types for an ODU (I thought TSG was already covered)? I think this has been discussed for quite long time before Vancouver meeting, which was famous as "penultimate" issue. Note that this TSG in GPID is different from the *implicit* TSG in label format. I don't think we need discuss this anymore. (2) 'Grouped GPID' vs '1:1' mapping (between G.709-2012 and GPIDs defined in this draft) We realize that it is safe to use 1:1 mapping approach to avoid some potential issues after investigation. We know this payload types have been defined by G.709 (data plane), so physically it is better to use 1:1 mapping approach. For the potential issues I mentioned above, for example, we cannot use the existing 34 to represent 'STM-1' and 'STM-4 ', because it is impossible to differentiate which one is 'STM-1' or 'STM-4'. In addition, from the concept of payload type, we know that e.g, FC-100 is different from FC-800, right? So, it is better to assign different GPIDs to these different payload types defined by the data plane. Furthermore, I think it is much cheaper to create new GPIDs in the control plane than in the data plane (these payload types will be carried in the OH). Best Regards Fatai -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:51 PM To: Fatai Zhang Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Closing G.709 open issues On 5/9/2013 9:41 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: > Hi Lou, > > For point 1), "1" should be dropped and "7" should be corrected to "8" in your proposed text. Great. > > I hesitate to make a decision on either approach, I would like to defer to the WG consensus. > I believe we already have a consensus position. The question in my mail was do we need to revisit it. I take your response as a no. (thank you!) > For point 2), I compared [G.709-2003] and [G.709-2012], and checked > the GPIDs defined in [RFC4328], I think the following new GPIDs > (values could be 59-79) should be added (besides updating some GPIDs > defined in RFC4328, like 32,47,49-52): > I suggest going through the full PT list and identifying them in the table (as I started in my last message) so that there is no confusion in implementations. In the list below it looks like you have moved away from the 'grouped G-PID' approach. Is there a reason for this change? Refer to http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml in subsequent comments. > Value G-PID Type LSP Encoding Type > ----- ---------- ----------------- > 59(TBA) G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk > 60(TBA) G.709 ODU-any G.709 ODUk Do you really need 3 G-PID types for an ODU (I thought TSG was already covered)? > 61(TBA) PCS G.709 ODUk (k=0) > 62(TBA) FC-1200 G.709 ODUk (k=2e) Why not us existing G-PID 58? > 63(TBA) eOPU2 G.709 ODUk (k=2) > 64(TBA) STM-1 G.709 ODUk (k=0) > 65(TBA) STM-4 G.709 ODUk (k=0) Why not us existing G-PID 34? > 66(TBA) FC-100 G.709 ODUk (k=0) > 67(TBA) FC-200 G.709 ODUk (k=1) > 68(TBA) FC-400 G.709 ODUflex > 69(TBA) FC-800 G.709 ODUflex Why not us existing G-PID 58? > 70(TBA) IB SDR G.709 ODUflex > 71(TBA) IB DDR G.709 ODUflex > 72(TBA) IB QDR G.709 ODUflex Can these be one value with rate implying SDR/DDR/QDR? > 73(TBA) SDIa G.709 ODUk (k=0) > 74(TBA) SDIb G.709 ODUk (k=1) > 75(TBA) SDIc G.709 ODUk (k=1) > 76(TBA) SDId G.709 ODUflex > 77(TBA) SDIe G.709 ODUflex Can these be one value with rate implying a-e? > 78(TBA) SB/ESCON G.709 ODUk (k=0) Why not us existing G-PID 56? > 79(TBA) DVB_ASI G.709 ODUk (k=0) > > > > Thanks, Lou
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Clos… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clo… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clos… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: C… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: … Lou Berger