Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Tue, 20 December 2011 19:05 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 5BA8B21F86A0 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:05:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.93
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.719, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 FkKH4jLHBb4l for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A0A21F854D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTvDccakZ2SZumZvQOp6Jv/L9tIGKiDqt@postini.com; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:05:42 PST
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:02:06 -0800
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:02:03 -0800
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Thread-Index: Acy/Pxm3ppynhSFcSOu1sp7i6cmkJgACRLvA
Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517E4F@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED65D2D.2040400@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CADAB@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4EDE3E19.6010303@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18AB@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EF0A18F.4080000@orange.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517AFD@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819BA8E25@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517B62@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2B010A0998FB37@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net> <4EF0B788.7020700@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517BE2@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0C99B.4020505@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EF0C99B.4020505@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
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: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:05:45 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:45 AM > To: John E Drake > Cc: Sadler, Jonathan B.; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > (Issue 1/2) > > My proposal in Taipei was motivated by intra-technology hierarchy > representation in a generic method, ala PSC-2->N. [JD] There is no requirement to do this and in general it is of no use in path computation. More specifically, for both SDH/SONET and OTN, it is of absolutely no use in path computation. > > The fact that in OTN > level of hierarchy also implies a bandwidth is really > orthogonal&incidental from this perspective. > > You have made your position clear, i.e., that you think that the > original definition of PSC-2->N (and use of SC as a generic > intra-technology hierarchy indicator) is flawed. Others have made the > point that it is not. As I've stated on the list, I personally think > it's an interesting proposal that should be considered. > > So how do we close on this discussion? > > In an earlier message I asked if you were interested in putting a draft > together to document your proposed change to the base GMPLS specs. [ [JD] There are no changes to the base GMPLS specs. We are not changing the base definition of PSC 1-4 and what we are defining is completely consistent with SDH/SONET. > Since you haven't expressed any interest in this, I'll bite and commit > to putting forward a draft (in January) that captures both/all sides of > the base GMPLS implications of this debate. Hopefully this will help > move the non-technology specific GMPLS portions of this debate to > closure; any needed OTN changes/implications can then follow. By your definition, above, this draft is going to contain no new information, so what is the purpose of the exercise? > > Anyone interested in contributing, in a constructive manner, to this > individual draft is welcome. Just send me mail. > > Lou > > On 12/20/2011 11:46 AM, John E Drake wrote: > > The snippet from Jonathan's email "how the ODUs interact with each > other (e.g. placing an ODU0 into an ODU1)" is a useful short > description of the problem we are solving. > > > > I.e., the types of ODUj a given ODUk interface supports. This is > much more relevant in path computation than that interface's bandwidth, > especially given that multiple bandwidths of ODUk support a given ODUj, > and we advertise an interface's bandwidth separately. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:28 AM > >> To: Sadler, Jonathan B. > >> Cc: John E Drake; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > >> (Issue 1/2) > >> > >> Jonathan, > >> This point is precisely (one of) the key reasons I put forward > >> the > >> proposal on multiple SC types. > >> > >> Lou > >> > >> On 12/20/2011 11:12 AM, Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: > >>> John, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> While each ODU layer is a single layer network, how the ODUs > interact > >>> with each other (e.g. placing an ODU0 into an ODU1) generates a > >>> multi-layer network. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This detail is especially important when dealing with multi-stage > >>> multiplexing (eg ODU0 over ODU1 over ODU2) AND dealing with > different > >>> adaptation styles (e.g. 2.5G TS vs 1.2G TS) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> CCAMP did get a liaison from ITU-T last year pointing these details > >> out > >>> (LS221). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jonathan Sadler > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From:* ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On > >>> Behalf Of *John E Drake > >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:02 AM > >>> *To:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) > >>> *Cc:* CCAMP > >>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF > 82 > >>> (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sergio, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Excellent. Jonathan, check this out. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From:* BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) [mailto:sergio.belotti@alcatel- > >> lucent.com] > >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:59 AM > >>> *To:* John E Drake > >>> *Cc:* CCAMP; Zhangfatai; Julien Meuric > >>> *Subject:* R: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > >>> (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> John, > >>> > >>> Just to emphasize what you've already well mentioned about multi- > >> layer > >>> in OTN. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This is what reports the Recommendation representing Optical > >> Transport > >>> Network architecture , G.872. > >>> > >>> ..... > >>> > >>> "Since the resources that support these topological components > >> support a > >>> heterogeneous assembly of ODUs, the ODU layer is modelled as a > single > >>> layer network that is independent of bit-rate. The ODU bit-rate is > a > >>> parameter that allows the number of Tributary Slots (TS) for the > ODU > >>> link connection to be determined." > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sergio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Messaggio originale----- > >>> Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per > conto > >> di > >>> John E Drake > >>> Inviato: martedì 20 dicembre 2011 16.14 > >>> A: Julien Meuric; Zhangfatai > >>> Cc: CCAMP > >>> Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > >>> (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Julien, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't know how many times we want to go over this. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> As you might expect, Switching Capability enables path computation > to > >> be > >>> aware of regions in which there are different switching > capabilities. > >>> It was never intended to delineate sub-regions (layers) within > those > >>> regions. In particular, nowhere in the entire body of the > >>> Multi-Layer/Multi-Region work is this capability mentioned. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Further, it is not used in this manner in SDH/SONET which, along > with > >>> OTN, is the best example of a multi-layer network with which we > have > >> to > >>> deal and the last time we had this discussion, prior to Maastricht, > >> it > >>> was stated that the ITU has deprecated the use of the concept of > >>> multi-layer in its modeling of OTN networks. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Could we please agree that PSC 1-4 was an aberration that can be > >>> attributed to inexperience and just erase it from our collective > >> memory? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>> > >>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf > >>> > >>>> Of Julien Meuric > >>> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:54 AM > >>> > >>>> To: Zhangfatai > >>> > >>>> Cc: CCAMP > >>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > >>> > >>>> (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Fatai. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> About the IGP, I believe we agree on several things: > >>> > >>>> - we are dealing with the ODUk layers within the OTN > >>> > >>>> technology/regions; > >>> > >>>> - the ISCD is an appropriate place to put the information on ODUk > >>> > >>>> capabilities of nodes. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> What we disagree on: > >>> > >>>> - using the term "extension" to refer to encoding the hierarchy > >> level > >>> > >>>> in > >>> > >>>> the SC field: the _fact_ is that PSC-[1~4] are part of existing > RFCs > >>> > >>>> (e.g. 4203); > >>> > >>>> - selecting the SC field as an information on the hierarchy level. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> This leaves us with an open discussion on the latter. We already > >> have 2 > >>> > >>>> options on the table for the ISCD in IGPs: > >>> > >>>> a) multiple SC values, > >>> > >>>> b)"Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well)". > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> First of all, I do not believe the original intend of SC alone was > >> to > >>> > >>>> reflect the notion of region: xSC acronyms may map to "regions", > but > >>> > >>>> from a codepoint perspective we can have several values behind a > >> single > >>> > >>>> xSC (e.g. x=P). > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Then you propose to use the "[OTN] Signal Type": as opposed to a) > >>> > >>>> above, > >>> > >>>> this is a new extension, created in > >>> > >>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-00. As emphasized by Kireeti, > the > >> SC > >>> > >>>> field should allow to constrain path computation into a range or a > >>> > >>>> sub-part of the hierarchy (without necessarily specifying a full > >> list). > >>> > >>>> The I-D uses a single SC (OTN-TDM) for the whole OTN, which means > >> the > >>> > >>>> SC > >>> > >>>> field is useless to prune the network graph when routing an ODUk: > >> even > >>> > >>>> for pruning, a CSFP implementation needs to parse some OTN- > specific > >>> > >>>> sub-TLVs. Hence I prefer the "old-fashion" approach which > represent > >> the > >>> > >>>> hierarchy information at a higher level in the IGP, like it was > done > >>> > >>>> for > >>> > >>>> PBB-TE (RFC 6060). > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Regards, > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Julien > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Le 06/12/2011 20:21, Zhangfatai a écrit : > >>> > >>>>> Hi Julien, > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> I agree the requirement that you mentioned, but it can be > >> resovled > >>> > >>>>> without extending Switching Cap. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> It is known that there are two cases described in RFC5212 and > >>> > >>>>> RFC5339, one is MRN, another one is MLN. In RFC5212, it says: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>> > >> > ======================================================================= > >>> > >>>> ======== > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>> Thus, a control plane region, identified by its switching type > value > >>> > >>>> (e.g., TDM), can be sub-divided into smaller-granularity component > >>> > >>>> networks based on "data plane switching layers". The Interface > >>> > >>>> Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202], identifying the > >>> > >>>> interface switching capability (ISC), the encoding type, and the > >>> > >>>> switching bandwidth granularity, enables the characterization of > the > >>> > >>>> associated layers. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> In this document, we define a multi-layer network (MLN) to be a > >>> > >>>>> Traffic Engineering (TE) domain comprising multiple data plane > >>> > >>>>> switching layers either of the same ISC (e.g., TDM) or different > >> ISC > >>> > >>>>> (e.g., TDM and PSC) and controlled by a single GMPLS control > >> plane > >>> > >>>>> instance. We further define a particular case of MLNs. A multi- > >>> > >>>>> region network (MRN) is defined as a TE domain supporting at > >> least > >>> > >>>>> two different switching types (e.g., PSC and TDM), either hosted > >> on > >>> > >>>>> the same device or on different ones, and under the control of a > >>> > >>>>> single GMPLS control plane instance. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>> > >> > ======================================================================= > >>> > >>>> ============== > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>> Therefore, for MRN case, we can use Switching Cap to differentiate > >> the > >>> > >>>> different "layers"; for MLN case (same ISC with different > >> granularity), > >>> > >>>> we can use Switching Cap & Signal Type (& Encoding Type as well) > to > >>> > >>>> differentiate the different granularity. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> So, come back to your question, it can be achived by using > >> Switching > >>> > >>>>> Cap&Encoding Type&Signal Type to identify the granularity > >> requested > >>> > >>>>> in OTN networks(e.g., this information can be carried in > >>> > >>>>> SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object) . > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Lastly, in my opinion, if there is no issue based on the > existing > >>> > >>>>> mechnism or definition without extending Switching Cap, I don't > >>> > >>>> think > >>> > >>>>> we need to extend Switching Cap. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Fatai > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> ________________________________________ 发件人: Julien Meuric > >>> > >>>>> [julien.meuric@orange.com] 发送时间: 2011年12月7日 0:08 到: > >> Zhangfatai > >>> > >>>> Cc: > >>> > >>>>> CCAMP; pce@ietf.org 主题: Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations > >>> > >>>> post > >>> > >>>>> IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Hi Fatai. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> As co-author of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, I believe you > >> will > >>> > >>>>> agree on the fact that having a Switching Capability per ODUk > >> layer > >>> > >>>>> would make the use of objects including a Switching Cap field > >> rather > >>> > >>>>> straightforward and enables a fine-grained resource description, > >>> > >>>> e.g. > >>> > >>>>> in: - REQ-ADAP-CAP object, to precisely identify the type of > >>> > >>>>> adaptation requested by a higher layer, or to get a clear > >> feedback > >>> > >>>> on > >>> > >>>>> the missing adaptation for unsuccessful path computations; - > >>> > >>>>> SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object, to precisely identify the type of > >>> > >>>>> server layer within the ERO. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Do not you think that summarizing G.709 by a single Switching > Cap > >>> > >>>>> value would take some capabilities away? What would you suggest > >> so > >>> > >>>> as > >>> > >>>>> to achieve the same level of details in that scenario? > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Julien > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> Le 02/12/2011 09:51, Zhangfatai a écrit : > >>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> I agree that there is no need to overload Switching Cap. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Fatai > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > >>> > >>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BELOTTI, SERGIO > >>> > >>>>>> (SERGIO) > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> John, as co-authors, we shared completely your thoughts. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Thanks Sergio and Pietro > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> SERGIO BELOTTI > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> ALCATEL-LUCENT Terrestrial System Architect Optics Portfolio > >>> > >>>>>> Evolution > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> via Trento 30 , Vimercate(MI) Italy T: +39 0396863033 > >>> > >>>>>> Sergio.Belotti@alcatel-lucent.com > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > >>> > >>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di John E Drake > >> Inviato: > >>> > >>>>>> mercoledì 30 novembre 2011 22.37 A: Lou Berger Cc: CCAMP > >> Oggetto: > >>> > >>>>>> Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Comments inline. I still think this is a terrible idea and I > >> would > >>> > >>>>>> like to see what the rest of the WG thinks. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger > >>> > >>>>>>> [mailto:lberger@labn.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 > >>> > >>>>>>> 1:09 PM To: John E Drake Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP Subject: > >>> > >>>>>>> Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2) > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> John, > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> see below > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> On 11/30/2011 2:59 PM, John E Drake wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>> Using Switching Capability to indicate link bandwidth seems > >>> > >>>>>>>> ill-considered at best, especially since this information is > >>> > >>>>>>>> carried in other fields, and as Daniele noted, it > >>> > >>>>>>>> significantly overloads to intended meaning of Switching > >>> > >>>>>>>> Capability. > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> I agree with the point on BW, but my point was related to the > >>> > >>>>>>> layer&hierarchy implications of the different ODUk values. I'd > >>> > >>>>>>> think that using values that are TDM-1 -> TDM-n should make > >> this > >>> > >>>>>>> clear and remove any ambiguity related to bandwidth. It is also > >>> > >>>>>>> completely consistent with the base GMPLS definition, i.e., > >>> > >>>>>>> PSC-1 -> PSC-n. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> [JD] You are simply asserting that this is a good idea and > >> further > >>> > >>>>>> asserting that there is "ambiguity related to bandwidth', > >> without > >>> > >>>>>> providing any evidence. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> To the best of my knowledge no one ever implemented or deployed > >>> > >>>>>> the PSC-1 -> PSC-4 hierarchy, simply because no one could figure > >>> > >>>>>> out what it meant. To quote from you, below, "Well hopefully we > >>> > >>>>>> have a better understanding of the technologies involved than we > >>> > >>>>>> had in the past.". I.e., we should all understand that PSC-1 -> > >>> > >>>>>> PSC-4 was a bad idea (tm) and move on. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> It also is inconsistent with the usage of Switching Capability > >>> > >>>>>>>> in SDH/SONET. > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Well hopefully we have a better understanding of the > >>> > >>>>>>> technologies involved than we had in the past. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> [JD] I think we had a very good understanding of SDH/SONET then > >>> > >>>>>> and we have a very good understanding of OTN now, and in both > >> cases > >>> > >>>>>> the authors saw no requirement to overload switching capability > >> in > >>> > >>>>>> the manner you are suggesting. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> A more extensive quote from RFC4202 is the following, which > >>> > >>>>>>>> seems clear enough to me: > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> "In the context of this document we say that a link is > >>> > >>>>>>>> connected to a node by an interface. In the context of GMPLS > >>> > >>>>>>>> interfaces may have different switching capabilities. For > >>> > >>>>>>>> example an interface that connects a given link to a node may > >>> > >>>>>>>> not be able to switch individual packets, but it may be able > >> to > >>> > >>>>>>>> switch channels within an SDH payload. Interfaces at each end > >>> > >>>>>>>> of a link need not have the same switching capabilities. > >>> > >>>>>>>> Interfaces on the same node need not have the same switching > >>> > >>>>>>>> capabilities." > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Not sure how this helps clarify anything... > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> [JD] I think it clarifies that switching capabilities is meant > >> to > >>> > >>>>>> describe how a given interface switches the information with > >> which > >>> > >>>>>> it is provided. This has nothing to do with the interface's > >>> > >>>>>> bandwidth. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Lou > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger > >>> > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:lberger@labn.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 > >>> > >>>>>>>>> 8:43 AM To: John E Drake Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 > >>> > >>>>>>>>> (Issue > >>> > >>>>>>> 1/2) > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Great. Care to substantiate your point? > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> On 11/30/2011 11:14 AM, John E Drake wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> I completely disagree. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Behalf > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Of Lou Berger Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:22 AM > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli Cc: CCAMP Subject: Re: [CCAMP] > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue > >>> > >>>>>>>>> 1/2) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniele, Since I raised the point, I guess I need to > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> champion it! (With chair hat off.) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> All, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Daniele said: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> most ODUk of > >>> > >>>>>>>>> the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the ISCD. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> After > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> idea was to > >>> > >>>>>>>>> reject > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of > >>> > >>>>>>>>> the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Switching Capability field. (even if the definition of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the meaning of the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> switching capability field) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> This really goes to the interpretation of the intent of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Switching Capability Types. So we have a few > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> definitions: 3471 says "the > >>> > >>>>>>> type > >>> > >>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> switching that should be performed", 4202 says > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "describes > >>> > >>>>>>> switching > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> capability of an interface." 3945 doesn't really define > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the term > >>> > >>>>>>> (it > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> just references 4202), but does equate it with a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "layer". While it allows for hierarchy within a "layer" > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> it also says hierarchy > >>> > >>>>>>> occurs > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "between interface types". > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So I interpret Switching Capability Types to represent > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> (a) > >>> > >>>>>>> different > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> switching/technology layers and (b) different levels of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy > >>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> even within a layer. I think (a) is identifiable in the > >>> > >>>>>>> definition > >>> > >>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the original GMPLS supported technologies (i.e., PSC, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> L2SC, TDM > >>> > >>>>>>> LSC, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and FSC), and (b) is identifiable in the original types > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> plus the > >>> > >>>>>>>>> definition > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> of PSC-1 through PSC-4. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So how does this apply to our current OTN work? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To me, the first question to ask relates to (a), and is > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> should > >>> > >>>>>>> each > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ODUk be modeled as a separate layer? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I know this has been a much debated point, and it seems > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> to me that > >>> > >>>>>>>>> they > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> are, but more for the perspective of switching layers > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> than > >>> > >>>>>>>>> technology > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> layers (i.e., they are clearly the same technology but > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> are > >>> > >>>>>>> different > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> granularity of swicthing.) So this is a yes for me. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think the second question to ask relates to (b), and > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> is does > >>> > >>>>>>> each > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ODUk represent a different level of hierarchy? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I see this as simply yes, and no different than what has > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> been done > >>> > >>>>>>>>> more > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> recently with Ethernet or, even if we do continue to > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> model OTN as > >>> > >>>>>>> a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> single layer, no different than PSC-1 -> PSC-4. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There's also a minor processing efficiency gained by > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> this approach > >>> > >>>>>>>>> for > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> nodes that support a smaller set of ODUks than are > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> advertised > >>> > >>>>>>> within > >>> > >>>>>>>>> an > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> IGP. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Based on all this, I believe different ODUk's should use > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> different Switching Types. In particular, I'm proposing: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> (1) that either the framework or info documents identify > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> that a per-OTUk Switching Capability Types will be used > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> to support G.709v3. (2) that > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3 define a different > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Switching Cap field value for each ODUk, and that it > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> state that the value corresponding to the signal type > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> identified in the #stages=0 of the ISCP be set. (Without > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> any other changes to the current definition of ISCD.) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> (3) that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 be > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> updated to match above. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To keep thinks generic, we probably should use TDM-1 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> through TDM-n > >>> > >>>>>>>>> as > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the new Switching Capability Types, but this is a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> secondary > >>> > >>>>>>>>> discussion. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Comments? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Lou > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> PS While the above is an important change, it doesn't > >>> > >>>>>>> significantly > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> impact encoding and won't take much text to make the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> actual > >>> > >>>>>>> change, > >>> > >>>>>>>>> so > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> this is a discussion that can continue until Paris if we > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> really > >>> > >>>>>>> need > >>> > >>>>>>>>> a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> face to face to resolve the discussion. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2011 1:18 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi CCAMP, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> During the OTN OSPF draft presentation at the IETF > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting in > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Taipei > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> two > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> comments were raised with respect to the following > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> issues: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Issue 1: Using different switching caps for each ODU > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> type > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Issue 2: Type 2 (unres bandwidth for variable > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> containers) and > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Type > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (MAX LSP bandwidth foe variable containers always used > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in tandem? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 1: the proposal was to indicate the bottom > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> most ODUk of > >>> > >>>>>>>>> the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> muxing hiearachy in the Switching Capability field of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the ISCD. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> After > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> quick talk with the other authors of the ID, the idea > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> was to > >>> > >>>>>>> reject > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> proposal as it would lead to an overloading of the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the Switching Capability field. (even if > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of PSC1-2-3-4 already overloads the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the switching capability field) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> WRT issue 2: it is analyzed in section 5.3 of the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> draft (version > >>> > >>>>>>> - > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 00). > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm copying it below for your convenience > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In this example the advertisement of an ODUflex->ODU3 > >>> > >>>>>>> hierarchy > >>> > >>>>>>>>> is > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> shown. In case of ODUflex advertisement the MAX LSP > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> needs > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to be advertised but in some cases also information > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> about the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Unreserved bandwidth could be useful. The amount of > >>> > >>>>>>> Unreserved > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth does not give a clear indication of how many > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ODUflex > >>> > >>>>>>>>> LSP > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> can be set up either at the MAX LSP Bandwidth or at > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> different > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> rates, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> as it gives no information about the spatial > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> allocation of the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> free > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> TSs. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> An indication of the amount of Unreserved bandwidth > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> useful > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> during the path computation process, as shown in the > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> following > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> example. Supposing there are two TE-links (A and B) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> with MAX > >>> > >>>>>>>>> LSP > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bandwidth equal to 10 Gbps each. In case 50Gbps of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Unreserved > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bandwidth are available on Link A, 10Gbps on Link B > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and 3 > >>> > >>>>>>>>> ODUflex > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> LSPs of 10 GBps each, have to be restored, for sure > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> only one > >>> > >>>>>>> can > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> be > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> restored along Link B and it is probable (but not > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sure) that > >>> > >>>>>>> two > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> them can be restored along Link A. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Early proposal was to have, in the case of variable > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> containers advertisements (i.e. ODUflex), the MAX LSP > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth TLV (Type 3) > >>> > >>>>>>>>> as > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> mandatory piece of information and the Unreserved > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bandiwdth TLV > >>> > >>>>>>>>> (Type > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2) > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an optional piece of information. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The comment received is that optional information can > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> lead to interworking issues and the counter proposal > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> was to have both > >>> > >>>>>>>>> pieces > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> information as mandatory and, as a consequence, merge > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the two > >>> > >>>>>>> TLVs > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> into > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a single one. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We'd like to hear the opinion of the WG on both issues > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> before > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> proceeding > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> with any modification to the document. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniele > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *DANIELE CECCARELLI * *System & Technology - DU IP & > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Broadband* > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Via L.Calda, 5 Genova, Italy Phone +390106002512 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile +393346725750 daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> www.ericsson.com > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> receive > >>> > >>>>>>> email > >>> > >>>>>>>>> on > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the term set out at > >>> > >>>>>>> www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> ============================================================ > >>> The information contained in this message may be privileged > >>> and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader > >>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee > >>> or agent responsible for delivering this message to the > >>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, > >>> dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly > >>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > >>> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and > >>> deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs > >>> ============================================================ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> CCAMP mailing list > >>> CCAMP@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Julien Meuric
- [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … Zhangfatai
- [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Zhangfatai
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF … BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 答复: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … neil.2.harrison
- Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 … Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- [CCAMP] R: 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IE… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Sadler, Jonathan B.
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post I… John E Drake