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

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

No Loa, I mentioned m = 16.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 3:15 AM
To: zali <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
Switching Routers

>Zafar,
>
>Do you imply that we might need more than 16 bits???
>
>/Loa
>
>On 2014-02-03 15:59, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I agree and don't see any strong reason for why CCAMP should not go with
>> m=16. However, at the moment we can say that usage of only x number of
>> bits is define (to match current DP definition in ITU-T).
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Regards … Zafar
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Iftekhar com>" <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:07 AM
>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>, Oscar de Dios
>> <[e-mail]>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]>,
>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
>> Switching Routers
>>
>>> This is a very interesting discussion.  I believe extending the value
>>>of
>>> m to 16-bit makes sense. BTW, that is why in our label definition we
>>>had
>>> proposed a 16-bit for the m to begin with.
>>>
>>> Regarding "why not", all along there has been recurring theme of not
>>> getting ahead of ITU definitions. So I am afraid, we can be selective.
>>> Having said this, if the collective wisdom is to go ahead - that is
>>>fine
>>> with me. But then let us look at all aspects and solutions (routing,
>>> signaling, etc.).
>>>
>>> Regarding the "entire spectrum slot is feasible", I agree. So let us
>>> first start with discussing/capturing this requirement/use case in the
>>> framework document?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Iftekhar
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08 AM
>>> To: Oscar González de Dios; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon
>>>Casellas
>>> Cc: CCAMP
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label
>>> Switching Routers
>>>
>>>>> My thoughts, exactly, although no strong opinion. I guess the other
>>>>> question would be "why not"?
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> We still have 16 bits reserved...
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Daniele
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Oscar
>>>> González de Dios
>>>> Sent: venerdì 31 gennaio 2014 17:06
>>>> To: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti); Ramon Casellas
>>>> Cc: CCAMP
>>>> Subject: 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)"
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2014, at 16:27, Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
>>>>> GM> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]