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

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Not enough, in case of ODUk/ODUj mapping it is needed not only at the end point but also at the intermediate ones. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: giovedì 14 marzo 2013 14.47
>To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Lou Berger; John E Drake
>Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP ([e-mail])
>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] G.709 signaling - encoding Type
>
>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
>>> 
>>
>