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

Hi, my 2 cents...

  With the encoding, you should be able to describe a frequency slot as
big as the whole spectrum available in the band. If 8 bits (that give a
width of 1593,75 GHz using the granularity of 6,25) is not enough, then it
MUST be extended to a bigger value. The flexi-grid framework allows a
hierarchy of frequency slots, so the ³entire spectrum² slot is feasible
and in line with current ITU recommendations. We are not saying a single
signal uses that amount of spectrum.

 Oscar

El 31/01/14 16:47, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>
escribió:

>
>On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:27, Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> wrote:
>
>> El 31/01/2014 15:03, Loa Andersson escribió:
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> I do not have any problem with that, unless there is a intended use of
>>> the reserved field.
>>>
>> Loa, Adrian, all,
>>
>> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other
>>question would be "why not"?
>> If, as Adrian mentions, we constrain the its use as defined in G.694.1
>>while leaving room for growth, at least the encoding would be more
>>likely be reused (as opposed to the WSON -> SSON).
>>
>
>GM> is not mere reuse but future protocol compatibility.  Sounds to me
>that¹s better to allocate few more bits know than looking for them in the
>future. Btw, to answer Loa doubts, there¹s no idea about how using
>reserved bits right now.
>
>Cheers
>G
>
>
>> For what is worth, individual drafts that are considering extending
>>RSVP-TE for signaling media channels would also be affected. The
>>underlying idea is to propose new types for the sender template and the
>>flowspec in the flow descriptor to accommodate for the requested and
>>allocated slot width. Right now, only the "m" parameter is encoded with
>>the corresponding padding/reserved bytes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ramon
>>
>> PS: much like Adrian's draft, the label encoding proposed in
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ccamp-flexible-grid-label-00 also
>>took into account the fact that a reduced number of bits would suffice
>>to cover G.694.1
>>
>>> On 2014-01-31 19:44, Adrian Farrel 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx