Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Fatai,

On 1/23/2013 6:49 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> For ODUflex(CBR), the formula is from [G.709-2012] and it has been
> discussed before, so please trust that there is no opportunity for
> misinterpretation. (Note that there are two cases, one is
> ODUflex(CBR) and another one is ODUflex(GFP)).
> 
> In addtion, ODUflex cannot be concatenated by [G.709-2012].

Thanks for confirming my understanding.  This raises the question of if
the new traffic should just apply to ODUFlex?  Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I believe the [RFC4328] is sufficient in all other cases.  This may
also make it easier for early implementations of the draft as then they
can limit code changes from the (-03) rev to only ODUflex LSPs.

Just to be clear, I'm really just *asking* about this.  As I said
before, I'm open on specifics...

Any thoughts/comments? Authors?  Implementors?

Thanks,
Lou


> I will issue a new version tomorrow to capture all your comments.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:11 AM
> To: Fatai Zhang
> Cc: CCAMP; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
> 
> Fatai,
> 
> On 1/20/2013 9:43 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> You said:
>>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right? Wat's the value of this vs just carrying N?
>>
>> [Fatai] The original way (in version 04&05) is putting (N* Nominal
>> Rate) in "Bit_Rate" field for ODUflex(GFP), the value is that we can
>> generalize to just use one single "Bit_Rate" field to carry IEEE
>> float number for both cases, it seems that you don't agree on this
>> value, :-)
> 
> I've seen differences in calculated floating point values from different
> implementations, so I just want to ensure that such cases are avoided.
> I'm open to specific solutions and certainly will deffer on the
> specifics assuming there is no opportunity for misinterpretation/interop
> issues. I don't think the original passed this threshold, i.e.,:
> 
>          N = Ceiling of
> 
>    ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate tolerance)
>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>        ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate tolerance)
> 
>> . Therefore, I (was) am saying that I am going to accept
>> your suggestion to carry N for ODUflex(GFP). We are discussing where
>> to put N for ODUflex(GFP).
>>
> 
>> You said:
>>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's better to have simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this case).
>>
>> [Fatai] OK, I will add a new field (to occupy the reserved bits) to carry N.
> 
> As you see fit.
> 
> Just to clarify my understanding, ODUflex and Virtual concatenation can
> never be combined for the same signal type/level, right? (Although an
> ODUflex client signal could be carried over a virtual concatenated
> ODUk).  Is this correct or did I miss something in G709?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Fatai
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:42 AM
>> To: Fatai Zhang
>> Cc: CCAMP; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/2013 10:16 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> To avoid misunderstanding, I would like to clarify more on the
>>> following point.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> It is better to have consistent format and the same meaning of one
>> field for both ODUflex(CBR) and GFP. This is why we have section 5.1
>> &5.2 to describe the complex stuff.
>>>>>> I actually wasn't suggesting that N be carried in the bit rate field.
>>>>>> The bit rate field can either be set as described or to zero (i.e.,
>>>>>> ignored).  At the time, I was thinking about carrying N in the reserved
>>>>>> field. But perhaps the right place is MT, if my understanding is right
>>>>>> (would always be 1 otherwise). I'm open to either...
>>>>>>
>>>>> [Fatai] Why not just use "bit rate"field to carry "N"because "N"
>>>>> implies bit rate?  I am OK if you like to use a new filed (like "TS
>>>>> Number") to occupy the reserved field even though that I prefer the
>>>>> original approach (ie., use "bit rate"field to carry "N").
>>>>
>>>> Are you proposing dropping carrying bit rates represented as an IEEE
>>>> floating point and just carrying N for ODUflex? This seems workable to
>>>> me, but we should ensure that there are no significant objections.
>>>
>>> [Fatai] There are two usages for " Bit_Rate " field as described in the
>>> lines 287-310.
>>>
>>> (1)    For ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate field indicates the nominal bit
>>> rate of ODUflex(CBR) expressed in bytes per second, encoded as a 32-bit
>>> IEEE single precision floating-point number. For this case, we MUST use
>>> 32-bit IEEE floating point instead of "N"(Please see more in section 5.1).
>>
>> I guess you really still need (to be based on) the client signal rate at
>> the edges.
>>
>>>
>>> (2)    For ODUflex(GFP), we can change the text (the lines from 305 to
>>> 310) based on your suggestion, ie., the Bit_Rate field is used to carry
>>> "N"to indicate the nominal bit rate of the
>>> ODUflex(GFP).
>>
>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right?  Wat's the value of
>> this vs just carrying N?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, I am proposing using one single filed ("Bit_Rate ") for these
>>> two cases, in this way, we can leave the "Reserved" bits for future.
>>
>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's better to have
>> simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this case).
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>>
>>> Hope we are now at the same page.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Fatai
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>