[CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 21 May 2013 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 5D92621F977E for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SVLUhdAM6AGc for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5981821F96BC for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7271 invoked by uid 0); 21 May 2013 13:16:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 21 May 2013 13:16:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=/V9jds5dsd785MJf2SH1aG8Kp/ofiV4ikAc2biUuFE0=; b=QqOxEonT5I/VeoOEUTDFkgOcll1qJ3hkfdJp8klami1q+BGdC6pCA0BxQ/c3xEXl2+KYdKBtlJbB9yBbUZOR22iH7wzfD/4DEEXZZq18YzhFJdTURDdB38u76brrRPuv;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:33167 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UemQz-00045I-6z; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:16:57 -0600
Message-ID: <519B73C9.2030308@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:16:57 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B000@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518BAB17.9090807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C67D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <518BDAFF.40706@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B39A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518CED28.30303@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B943@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4802BCBD@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317BEA2@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <51924382.2010904@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C90D5@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <13ea7ed3bdd.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4802C534@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <5193A26A.1090005@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317D2BA@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <519649B4.5060408@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319607D@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei. com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319607D@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues)
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, 21 May 2013 13:17:29 -0000

All,

In the interest of moving this discussion quickly to closure, I spent
some time trying to come up with the full list of G.709 PT to G-PID
mappings.  In coming up with this list I tried to be consistent with
the last consensus point that I can identify on this topic (the
previously referenced July 2012 thread & presentation), which included:

A) Defining new G-PIDs for client types not identified by an assigned
G-PID (per
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml)

B) Reusing G-PID wherever {G-PID, ODU rate} unambiguously identify a
G.709 payload type, and define new G-PIDs when reuse not possible.

C) No G-PID value for unused, reserved, or proprietary 709 Payload Type.

Here's what I've come up with:

    G.709
   Payload
    Type   G-PID   Type/Comment    LSP Encoding
    ====   =====   ==============  ===================
    0x01           No standard value
    0x02    49     CBRa            G.709 ODUk
    0x03    50     CBRb            G.709 ODUk
    0x04    32     ATM             G.709 ODUk
    0x05    TBA1   Framed GFP      G.709 ODUk
    0x06    ???    Is any valued needed?
    0x07    55     Ethernet PHY    G.709 ODUk (k=0)
                   (transparent    G.709 ODUk (k=3)
                   GFP)            G.709 ODUk (k=4)
    0x08    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUk (k=2e)
    0x09    TBA1   Framed GFP      G.709 ODUk (k=2e)
    0x0A    TBA2   STM-1           G.709 ODUk (k=0)
    0x0B    TBA3   STM-4           G.709 ODUk (k=0)
    0x0C    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUk (k=0)
    0x0D    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUk (k=1)
    0x0E    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUflex
    0x0F    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUflex
    0x10    51     BSOT            G.709 ODUk
    0x11    52     BSNT            G.709 ODUk
    0x12    TBA4   InfiniBand      G.709 ODUflex
    0x13    TBA4   InfiniBand      G.709 ODUflex
    0x14    TBA4   InfiniBand      G.709 ODUflex
    0x15    TBA5   Serial Digital  G.709 ODUk (k=0)
                   Interface
    0x16    TBA6   Serial Digital  G.709 ODUk (k=1)
                   Interface/1.001
    0x17    TBA5   Serial Digital  G.709 ODUk (k=1)
                   Interface
    0x18    TBA6   Serial Digital  G.709 ODUflex
                   Interface/1.001
    0x19    TBA5   Serial Digital  G.709 ODUflex
                   Interface
    0x1A    56     SBCON/ESCON     G.709 ODUk (k=0)
                   (IANA to update Type field)
    0x1B    TBA7   DVB_ASI         G.709 ODUk (k=0)
    0x1C    58     Fiber Channel   G.709 ODUk
    0x20    47     G.709 ODU-2.5G  G.709 ODUk
                                     (k=2,3)
                   (IANA to update Type field)
            TBA8   G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk
                                     (k=1,2,3)
    0x21    TBA8   G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk
                                     (k=2,3,4)
            TBA9   G.709 ODU-Any   G.709 ODUk
                                   (k=2,3)
    0x55           No standard value
    0x66           No standard value
    0x80-0x8F      No standard value
    0xFD    TBA10  Null Test       G.709 ODUk
    0xFE    TBA11  Random Test     G.709 ODUk
    0xFF           No standard value

Note that there are a few differences with Fatai's list, which doesn't
format well in e-mail, but is available in the archive
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14845.html

Please speak up if you think the above is not aligned with prior
consensus or if you have an issue with any of the above.

Much thanks,
Lou


On 5/20/2013 5:09 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
>  
> 
> I think my mail on March 13rd may have answered your following comments.
> My response quoted as follows.
> 
>  
> 
> In addition, if people look at the full list that I provided, I think
> people can realize that RFC4328 (section 3.1.3) used the same approach
> as the current approach of this draft (ie., 1:1 mapping between GPIDs
> and payload types defined by G.709), ie., we are following what RFC4328
> did.
> 
>  
> 
> BTW, I am not sure if we need spend so much on discussing this point
> (because there is no issue to stick to the data plane by using the
> current approach of this draft).
> 
>  
> 
> ======================================================================================================================
> 
> (2) 'Grouped GPID' vs '1:1' mapping (between G.709-2012 and GPIDs
> defined in this draft)
> 
>  
> 
> We realize that it is safe to use 1:1 mapping approach to avoid some
> potential issues after investigation. We know this payload types have
> been defined by G.709 (data plane), so physically it is better to use
> 1:1 mapping approach.
> 
> For the potential issues I mentioned above, for example, we cannot use
> the existing 34 to represent 'STM-1' and 'STM-4 ', because it is
> impossible to differentiate which one is 'STM-1' or 'STM-4'. In
> addition, from the concept of payload type, we know that e.g, FC-100 is
> different from FC-800, right? So, it is better to assign different GPIDs
> to these different payload types defined by the data plane.
> 
>  
> 
> Furthermore, I think it is much cheaper to create new GPIDs in the
> control plane than in the data plane (these payload types will be
> carried in the OH).
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 
>  
> 
> Fatai
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:16 PM
> To: Fatai Zhang
> Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP;
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues
> 
>  
> 
> Fatai,
> 
>         
> 
> That's a great start for the WG.  Thank you.
> 
>  
> 
> To answer your implied question as to why my request for the full list.
> 
> My feeling is that there have been too many "surprises" on the 709
> 
> documents in areas that I thought were either obvious (but from the IETF
> 
> & GMPLS context, not ITU-T or G.709 perspectives) or resolved by past
> 
> discussions.  At this point, as co-chair and Document shepherd, I want
> 
> to ensure that any open point on the documents are unambiguously closed
> 
> and that past discussions (i.e., points of consensus) are 100% captured,
> 
> so that we can smoothly move through the planned second LC and
> 
> publication request.
> 
>  
> 
> To that end, in my previous message I asked two questions about points
> 
> where it seems you are proposing moving away from what has been
> 
> previously been discussed & agreed to by the WG.  Can you answer the
> 
> following:
> 
>  
> 
>>> My questions on the new G-PIDs come down to:
> 
>>> - Why are rate specific G-PIDs being proposed (rather than
> 
>>>   continuing to use the previous approach documented in the draft
> 
>>>   and in Section 3.1.3 of rfc4328)?
> 
>  
> 
>>> - Why are new values being defined rather than using existing
> 
>>>   values, e.g., G-PID 56?
> 
>>> 
> 
>  
> 
> Much thanks,
> 
> Lou
> 
>  
> 
>  
>