Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
 
[Speaking as a regular contributor which, praise be, I will in just three weeks'
time. Not that I'm counting...]
 
There is some up-levelling to be done here.
 
Rajan seems to be proposing a new concept that would allow us to advertise not
just the bandwidth available at each priority (per 4202) but also to vary the
constraints on allocation per priority. This would allow us to say that priority
x LSPs can only use chunks of bandwidth between sizes a and b, while priority y
LSPs can only chunks of bandwidth between sizes c and d.
 
I have three questions:
- Is this a valid thing to want to do in any technology?
- Is it something we want to do in Flexigrid?
- Is it something that should be generalised?
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhangxian (Xian)
Sent: 03 March 2015 07:22
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan, 
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê3ÔÂ3ÈÕ 8:56
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian,
 
Minimum LSP bandwidth will address technological advances. For e.g. tomorrow¡¯s
6.25GHz  instead of today¡¯s 12.5GHz. GMPLS extensions should cover the case of
network having a mix of different hardware capabilities. 
[Xian]: I agree with the above statements. But they are a property of an
interface, which AFAIC does not change over time. That¡¯s why I said it have
already be covered by Section 4.3 (please take a look if any information is
missing as well).  ISCD, especially SCSI is used to advertise the available
bandwidth information and it is changing dynamically. So, I do not think SCSI is
the right place to do so.
 
Advertising per priority aligns with RFC4202.  I don¡¯t see any issues.
[Xian] I have to disagree.   RFC4202 does not support advertising min LSP
bandwidth per priority. Please take a look at the encoding of Section 1.4. of
RFC4203. What¡¯s said there: for PSC and TDM, you carry ONE minimum LSP
bandwidth information (which is not associated per priority); for Lambda
switching, it does not have any SCSI at all. 
 
Having said all these, I personally do not think the value of advertising min
LSP bandwidth per priority. If you disagree again, could you give me an usage
example?  
 
As far as Maximum LSP bandwidth goes, either option would work but my preference
would be to put it in technology specific part (SCSI).
[Xian]: point taken. I agree with you that both work but I would prefer to take
Option 1. Let¡¯s get a bit more feedback from the WG before updating the draft.
 
Regards,
Xian
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:35 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan, all, 
 
      ¡°Min & Max slot¡± you mentioned below is a bit mis-leading. I think you
wanted to say ¡°Min & Max LSP bandwidth¡±. Let talk them one by one since we are
not aligned yet on both. 
      
      Why do we need to advertise Min LSP bandwidth per priority in ISCD, e.g.,
a request cannot set up a LSP smaller than X GHz and it varies per priority? If
you  meant to say the interface limitation, it is covered in Section 4.3
already.  
 
      As for the Max LSP bandwidth information, I agree with you that RFC4204
has this requirement. This draft (draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01)
needs to be updated to reflect this. I can think of two options: 
 
Option A: use the existing fields (MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority x, x=0-7)  in
the ISCD (defined in Section 1.4. of RFC4203). The point that we need to update
is the unit to be usable in the context of Flexi-grid. It will be Hz not byte
per second.
 
Option B: We add the max LSP bandwidth field (16 bit) in the Available Labels
Field by using the Reserved field.  
 
    Which option does the WG prefer?
 
Regards,
Xian
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ28ÈÕ 2:51
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian, all
 
Section 4.3 is trying to use port label restrictions sub-TLV with a new
restriction type.  This is fine.  But how does a path computing node determine
if it can use the link to setup an LSP with N-slots @ priority ¡®p¡¯?   For e.g
I don¡¯t want to allow priority 7 LSPs to use bandwidth greater than 20 slots on
the link but allow for LSPs with priority 0, 1 & 2.  Where is this info in the
TLV?
 
We had given examples when we presented our draft in Taipei IETF-82.  Ref slides
8 & 10 (link below).  We had coverage for advertisement of  Min & Max slot
widths per priority. This is meant to align with RFC 4202.  I believe WG doc
lacks this and needs to address.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/ccamp-18.pdf
 
thx
Rajan
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:33 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan and all,
 
Thank you for your clarification and I now fully understand your question. I
think you have misunderstood Section 4.3. of this draft. It was not to describe
dynamic Max & Min LSP bandwidth but rather the capability/constraint associated
with an port, which rarely change over time.
 
Isn¡¯t information per priority already supported? Quoting text from the drafts
referred:
 
¡°The technology specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
   number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.¡±
 
As for the Mix and Max LSP bandwidth, could you give me an example of what you
said below, i.e.,¡°Availability of  ¡®N¡¯ consecutive labels doesn¡¯t mean you
can setup an LSP with a size of ¡®N¡¯¡±? 
 
    What does the WG think of the issue under discussion?
 
Regards,
Xian
 
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ27ÈÕ 4:03
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian,
 
I understand this doc is trying to reuse GEN-ENCODE & there is support for
priority.  I am not referring to this one.  The Min Width & Max  Width fields do
exist in the draft but these alone are not sufficient. We need info per priority
for the following reason.
 
The intent of Min & Max width info is to specify what is the Minimum/Maximum LSP
bandwidth an LSP could reserve at a given priority ¡®p¡¯ on the link.  You can
draw parallel to ¡®Minimum LSP Bandwidth¡¯ & ¡®Maximum LSP Bandwidth¡¯ fields in
RFC 4202.   
 
I don¡¯t understand how you can derive this from label set field.   Availability
of  ¡®N¡¯ consecutive labels doesn¡¯t mean you can setup an LSP with a size of
¡®N¡¯.  
 
Thx
Rajan
 
 
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 5:37 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
    As I was not involved earlier, I find the following may be  a bit long for
others in the WG to get involved.  Before I dive into the discussion and share
my thoughts, am I accurate if I recap the question as:
 
   You think the existing text in draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01 do
not support the following: 
1)       Do not support priority; 
2)       Do not convey the min & max LSP bandwidth information in the SCSI
field; 
 
Could you confirm my interpretation of your issue?
 
The following is my thoughts ( subject to change if the question I recapped
above is not as exact as what you want to say):
 
The  current method is to reuse what has already been proposed for WSON. So it
reuses the SCSI field defined in WSON-OSPF draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15#
section-3.1). So, it DOES support priority (see the details are in [GEN-ENCODE]
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-20). Exactly because of the same
reason, the draft under discussion uses label set field to describe what
frequency slots are available. So, although it allows for all different
varieties supported by [GEN-ENCODE] (i.e., list, bitmap, inclusive, exclusive
etc.), the method does not see the need of specify the max&min LSP bandwidth
since it can be naturally deduced from the available frequency spectrum
information conveyed.  
 
The above discussion actually reminds me of a question Ramon raised up a while
ago among the authors of this draft, what has been defined in WSON-OSPF is truly
usable labels in signaling. But with Flexi-grid, it is not true anymore. For
example, although we use Inclusive Label Range to describe available frequency
range, say the example in Section 4.4 of
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01 (assume m=1), none of these labels
are directly usable if what is actually requested is a bandwidth with m=2.  I
myself do not see any issue as long as we make it clear we use the format just
to describe what resource available NOT usable labels. Since it is a WG draft,
it is worthwhile to solicit what you think?
 
Cheers,
Xian
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ26ÈÕ 7:17
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang; CCAMP ([e-mail])
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Ramon Casellas; Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Daniele,
 
Sure.  Added WG in the list for comments.
 
Thx
Rajan  
 
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 12:45 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Ramon Casellas; Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi all,
 
This is a really interesting discussion and since we¡¯re speaking about a
working group draft I think we should continue con the mailing list.
Please include the WG in your reply.
 
BR
Daniele
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: mercoled¨¬ 25 febbraio 2015 19:56
To: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Daniele Ceccarelli;
Ramon Casellas; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
The priority in each layer is independent.  The intent of explicitly carrying
priority info in the advertisement is to allow for LSP creation at different
priorities.  Note that priority defined in OTN RFC don¡¯t apply here as it is a
different layer.   You can have L0-LSP setup at priority-1 but L1-Telink (OTN
link) formed out of this may advertise all 8 or subset of them.  It is an
implementation choice.  I don¡¯t see any conflicts here.
 
Once we agree on the following items we can figure out TLV encoding options.
 
1.       Allow for Advertisement of Min & Max slot widths at different
priorities ¨C up to 8
2.       Min/Max slot width field ¨C 16 bit instead of 8  (I see you are
agreeing to this change below)
3.       Max LSP Bandwidth ¨C this was debated in previous meetings but no firm
conclusion. 
  
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Zhenghaomian [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:35 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Daniele Ceccarelli;
Ramon Casellas; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
Thanks for the information, I noticed there is a change talking about extending
Flexi-grid data plan to satisfy requirements in RFC4202. I forward this email to
all the authors of OSPF draft to advertise your commentsJ  
 
Firstly let¡¯s recall the sub-TLV format in
draft-dhillon-ccamp-flexgrid-ospfte-ext as follow: 
 
  0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Type=1            |              Length           |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Slice Spacing | Pri |                    Reserved              |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |               N-Start         |          Num of Slices        |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |         Min Slot Width        |       Max Slot Width          |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                                               |
   |                   Bit-Map showing Available Slices           |
   |                     (up to 48 bytes)                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
Then I share my understanding on your concern. Compared with sub-TLV in section
4.3 of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01, I highlight the difference as
follow: 
 
In your proposal, 
1)       Slice Spacing is preferred to be carried in the  sub-TLV; 
2)       Priority bits are preferred to be included in sub-TLV;
3)       Min/Max Widths should both be 16-bit; 
4)       N-start and Num of Slices to represent the spectrum rather than C.F.G
and S.W.G; 
 
Below please find my comments: 
Firstly I believe both of your structure and the current structure in WG draft
are satisfying the requirement of flexi-grid FWK draft (the info model in Fig.
17). We only need to deal with some differences in representation format, and
some additional information may be useful. 
 
1)       Different slice spacing is applicable but may not be necessary; the
spirit to introduce flexible grid is to allow flexibility in spectrum allocation
and current WG draft can satisfy the requirement. Not much further advantage for
using slice spacing; 
2)       Priority bits: I agree that it is widely used, I am basically fine to
include priority bits in the sub-TLV. My only concern is, there are also such
priority information in other place (for example OTN BW sub-TLV in Section 4.1.3
in RFC7138), do we need to repeat here? What is the relationship if we have two
priorities? Is it possible the OTN priority is not consistent with flexi-grid
priority? Why? And How to deal with this?
3)       Agreed, will change both the min/max widths to 16-bit in the next
version; 
4)       Personally I don¡¯t think it¡¯s necessary to change the current WG
draft: I think your proposed representation can have equivalent result as the
one in current WG draft;
 
Rajan, please correct me if there is misunderstanding, also let me know if you
have other comments. 
 
All, please feel free to comments, or we move to the list if necessaryJ
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2015Äê2ÔÂ24ÈÕ 4:03
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
The Flexgrid FWK doc has been updated with reference to RFC4202.   This should
address the comment you had in the earlier email.  Pl refer to updated doc
(attached email from Ramon).  Pl let us know how you would like to proceed. 
 
FWK doc Snip below:
 
5.1.2.  Routing
 
   The routing protocol will support all functions as described in
   [RFC4202] and extend them to a flexi-grid data plane.
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Rajan Rao 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:28 PM
To: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
Thx for the reply. Pl see below.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhenghaomian [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:22 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
Firstly sorry for the very late response.
 
For your first concern, I see some difference in TLVs about priority issue
(Table I in your draft). I think I understand your description but I didn't find
very much advantage to include such 'scalable' settings. 
 
RR>> Priority based advertisement is pretty standard mechanism used in all
existing RFCs.  For e.g. you can find these in WSON, OTN  docs and any other
Te-extensions draft. 
 
Another concern from me is, for the flexi-grid literature, there are more than
one WG draft, I think it's better to consider such case in fwk draft, and after
that the OSPF one can revise accordingly. P.S, I don't know whether this topic
was discussed on the list before (perhaps there are some conclusions, let me
know). If not, I would like to suggest move to the list.
 
RR>> I looked at framework.  Yes, it doesn¡¯t talk about priority based
advertisement.  Thanks for pointing this out. Good catch. We will provide this
comment to FWK authors & CC you.  I do not see any issue updating the fwk doc
with this detail.   
 
For your second concern on Max LSP Bandwidth, my understanding is you are trying
to use the description in section 3.2 of your draft to replace the one in
section 4.3 of current WG draft. Is this true? I believe the description in your
draft is clear and correct. BTW, I noticed bit difference in Min Bandwidth (16
bits allocated in your draft and 8 bit in current WG draft), hopefully this will
not be a big issue (8 bit support a bandwidth up to 3200GHz, which is absolutely
more than the normal requirement for a minimal BW).
 
RR>>  Yes, I was referring to section 3.2 in our draft.   
We went with 16-bit fields for Min & Max fields as the values for these fields
range from 0 ¨C 384.  We tried to address the case of using full spectrum BW as
one LSP.  This is an extreme case but can¡¯t be ruled out.
 
Pl let me know if you have any other comments.
Thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ18ÈÕ 6:09
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
As I had mentioned we are no longer pushing for SuperChannel in the draft.  So,
this should make it easier to merge the docs.
 
In my view there are couple of areas your draft doesn't address which can be
taken from our draft:
 
1.  You have separated Max & Min Slot width in Port Label restriction sub-TLV.
This is O.K. But this doesn't allow for priority based Min/Max usage.   Our
draft allows for this flexibility which can be used.
2.  Max LSP Bandwidth field definition can be taken from our doc.
 
The priority handling can be further simplified by merging slice info & Min/Max
fields in to a single sub-TLV if other authors agree.
 
Pl let me know.
 
Thx
Rajan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhenghaomian [ <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 5:15 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan and Khuzema,
 
Thanks for reminding. Do you guys have any suggestion on how to merge? Even if
we think the current draft is self-contained, we are still open on this. 
 
I know there are some different ideas from Infinera, but sorry I am not fully
understand every detail. Please let me know the exact section that need to be
updated and let's see how to proceed. Again, this will finally be determined by
the WG since already adopted. 
 
Thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ17ÈÕ 6:01
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
We had sent couple of emails asking about merging the contents with our draft.
Do you see an opportunity or any issues with the merge?  Can you pl respond on
how you would like to proceed? Pl see the attached email we had sent a while
back.
 
 
Thanks
Rajan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Zhenghaomian
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:24 AM
To:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Subject: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Dear CCAMPers,
 
We upload an updated version to reactivate the following draft against
expiration, together updating the Max width issue proposed in previous
discussions. Your comments are highly welcomed, thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian on behalf of authors
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: CCAMP [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]]
´ú±í  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ16ÈÕ 16:16
ÊÕ¼þÈË:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
³­ËÍ:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Ö÷Ìâ: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
 
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working
Group of the IETF.
 
        Title           : GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in support of Flexible Grid
        Authors         : Xian Zhang
                          Haomian Zheng
                          Ramon Casellas
                          Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
                          Daniele Ceccarelli
               Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
               Pages           : 14
               Date            : 2014-12-16
 
Abstract:
   This memo describes the OSPF-TE extensions in support of GMPLS
   control of networks that include devices that use the new flexible
   optical grid.
 
 
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext/
 
There's also a htmlized version available at:
 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01
 
A diff from the previous version is available at:
 <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01>
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01
 
 
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
 <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp