[CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wson-interoperability-00.txt
fu.xihua@zte.com.cn Thu, 28 July 2011 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <fu.xihua@zte.com.cn>
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 52AA221F8B2C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e5FelZ1bg6lX for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6892021F8B24 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 4864473195744; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:51:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 83350.4793943189; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:57:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p6SEv56d014028; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:57:05 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from fu.xihua@zte.com.cn)
To: shimazaki.daisaku@lab.ntt.co.jp, hayashi.rie@lab.ntt.co.jp, shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp, koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF055F3DA5.7AE77C5F-ON482578DB.004D374E-482578DB.00522400@zte.com.cn>
From: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:57:07 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-07-28 22:57:09, Serialize complete at 2011-07-28 22:57:09
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005223FD482578DB_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p6SEv56d014028
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wson-interoperability-00.txt
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:57:17 -0000
Hi Authors,
Following is my comments on your draft.
1. What's the definition of Non-WSON node? It is not clear for me.
Could you give me some character about Non-WSON node?
2. In section 2.1, you mention Non-WSON should ignore the WSON extended
IGP information.
But you also mention Non-WSON node should combine two TEDs, WSON and
non-WSON and make one TED.
Since Non-WSON ignores WSON extended IGP information, why can it get WSON
TED?
3. In section 4, you mention Non-WSON node (source) compute a path route
without any consideration of WSON constraint
and signal to WSON node (downstream) which will adds wavelength
information.
Does the path computation in Non-WSON make any sense?
As path computation in Non-WSON node doesn't have any WSON IGP
information, the computation result isn't feasible.
4.Could the UNI interface between WSON node and Non-WSON resolve the
interworking?
Xihua Fu
- [CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wson-in… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wso… Daisaku Shimazaki
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wso… fu.xihua
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-shimazaki-ccamp-wso… Daisaku Shimazaki