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

Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Fri, 31 January 2014 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8DB1A1F1A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:08:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fxjbhmfzht0H for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B201A1DBD for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d8e000002a7b-9c-52ebca62d532
Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4E.03.10875.26ACBE25; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:08:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.164]) by ESESSHC019.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:08:02 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: Oscar González de Dios <ogondio@tid.es>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>, Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
Thread-Index: AQHPHo0+8TE5tPD2FU2xa/fiwS9utZqe4/uAgAAFg4CAAAVAAIAAESDw
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:08:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481268313F@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <703BE6CF-9E5D-418C-A75F-1B59200E8328@cisco.com> <CF118687.2C5DA%ogondio@tid.es>
In-Reply-To: <CF118687.2C5DA%ogondio@tid.es>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7yqddBBt172SyezLnBYrGiqZnR YvIKNovdc7+xO7B4TPm9kdWj9Wg7i8eSJT+ZPJ783cIcwBLFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlbH86l3G golKFb+uL2dpYDwp3cXIySEhYCJxfuVhJghbTOLCvfVsXYxcHEIChxglNm7ZxQ7hLGGUeLzw JVAVBwebgJXEk0M+IHERgUWMEl+PvgbrZhaQkrh7q4sRxBYWiJY4P/8rM4gtIhAjseDsekaQ XhEBN4nXJ4xAwiwCqhJ/th5mB7F5BXwlpk+8zAJiCwnESfyceBtsJKeAjsTDr51gcUYBWYkJ uxcxQqwSl7j1ZD7U0QISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErSlydvhzqND2JG1OnsEHY2hLLFr5mhtgr KHFy5hOWCYxis5CMnYWkZRaSlllIWhYwsqxiZM9NzMxJLzfcxAiMpINbfuvuYDx1TuQQozQH i5I474e3zkFCAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGHMmb1z2eMunzYJd95W4bz/Tq/14 uH/e8XOlkTk3ZrnfMboT8j/FbdOxnC8Sh4vSDTwOa/061yMSzm/c4HW+9FJfQcDuiY+stFX5 PjwWZb657vcCG/vNzrqfd/xM+vYvSMq/5YmcE9taq/XsPhpXouUsIuYo6gSZ3X9aYhiXf7Oh odJzr4qKrxJLcUaioRZzUXEiANkkWFZyAgAA
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:08:10 -0000

>> 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:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 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)" <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
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp