Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Hi all,

I don't know if this has been proposed and discussed already but why not also add a field indicating slot width granularity (similar to the C.S. field) where today the only defined value would correspond to 12.5 GHz. This would accommodate a potentially finer granularity in the future (when technologies improve as Gabriele points out).

/Jonas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele Maria
> Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> Sent: den 31 januari 2014 16:47
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Daniel King'; 'CCAMP'
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> Switching Routers
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> If We talk about the the slot with granularity specified by G.694.1
> To be 12.5GHz, I agree that we have to wait any ITU feedback.
> On the other hand I don't see any constraint of Spectrum Width
> Size in G.694.1.  So there is no specification/limitation to m value.
> 
> In this sense I'd agree with Ramon: why not extend it.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Gabriele
> 
> 
> 
> Gabriele Galimberti
> Technical Leader
> Cisco Photonics Srl
> 
> 
> Via Philips, 12
> 20900 - Monza (MI)
> Italy
> www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> 
> ggalimbe@cisco.com
> Phone :+39 039 2091462
> Mobile :+39 335 7481947
> Fax :+39 039 2092049
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/31/14 12:44 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Gabriele,
> >
> >IIRC this topic has come up in various discussions.
> >I think the discussion ran aground when we tried to understand what ITU-T
> >SG15
> >Q6 data plane capabilities this increased value of "m" modelled.
> >
> >I believe that we could easily increase the size of the m field, but as I
> >understand the status of the Q6 work, we would still need to constrain
> >its use
> >as defined in G.694.1. Maybe that is the best compromise: it gives us
> >scope for
> >future expansion, but it makes (for now) the value strictly limited
> >according to
> >the current definition of the data plane we are controlling.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >Adrian
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele Maria
> >> Galimberti (ggalimbe)
> >> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:35
> >> To: Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
> >Switching
> >> Routers
> >>
> >> Hi Daniel
> >>
> >> I have a change request on the label:
> >>
> >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> >>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>    |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier      |               n                |
> >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>    |       m     |                     Reserved                    |
> >>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to extend the m value range to 16 bits to have the possibility
> >>to
> >> Allocate the whole C-band spectrum if needed.
> >> With 8 bits we can allocate only 60% of it.
> >> Another reason is that when new technologies will be available the
> >> Slot Width Granularity may increase (to 6.25GHz or better).
> >>
> >> So the proposed change is:
> >>
> >> 0                   1                   2                   3
> >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >> |Grid | C.S. |    Identifier    |                n              |
> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >> |                m              |            Reserved           |
> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>
> >>
> >>  m field = 16 bits.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Gabriele
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gabriele Galimberti
> >> Technical Leader
> >> Cisco Photonics Srl
> >>
> >>
> >> Via Philips, 12
> >> 20900 - Monza (MI)
> >> Italy
> >> www.cisco.com/global/IT/ <http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>
> >>
> >> ggalimbe@cisco.com
> >> Phone :+39 039 2091462
> >> Mobile :+39 335 7481947
> >> Fax :+39 039 2092049
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/29/14 6:06 PM, "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi CCAMP'rs,
> >> >
> >> >The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the
> >> >only
> >> >changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section as per
> >> >RFC6982.
> >> >
> >> >It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further
> >> >technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been
> >>picked
> >> >up
> >> >by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
> >> >
> >> >We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the
> >> >working
> >> >group:
> >> >
> >> >- Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft?
> >> >- Are you happy with the label format described?
> >> >- What do you think the next steps should be for this draft?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Dan (for the authors)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >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