Re: [Pce] [CCAMP] Response to Broadband Forum Liaison - Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces 18-Dec-2016

Gert Grammel <> Wed, 27 January 2016 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98F81B2EA8; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:22:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkv8EKsF85fL; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:796]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E21F1B2E80; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.390.13; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:22:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0390.013; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:22:29 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <>
To: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Response to Broadband Forum Liaison - Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces 18-Dec-2016
Thread-Index: AQHRV5+h86idbV8GX0GOyTt5wCjpXZ8PbQ4L
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:22:29 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB706; 5:iir7Uc5yYtujBSfhi9gGT+Cib1e28Hk459RT7Zo21AsPE/EJUFHagJ6RrVBqjxsMaFFt3/DiGbFaosMlToyVP9i8Z9uY8UJBb0hZbKLdLtwPLWAcvnlkLIFGuJjFpoeDRMuJDmjsmIgKb6xt5mmdqQ==; 24:kZInaIDAT+EH0KmSnwkitgk9Nwv4mJmlMPXqUWF055wKNHMlkIiq26XNfQ5bkajVr7EV7cxwkzgw6wb4PnewgRJGqvHzk+WbkrxmApwRPdg=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB706;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4922eaaa-2c45-4356-9327-08d3272549d1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415267)(102615245)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR05MB706; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR05MB706;
x-forefront-prvs: 0834BAF534
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(85664002)(24454002)(51914003)(53434003)(164054003)(377454003)(53754006)(189002)(199003)(15975445007)(5001960100002)(561944003)(54356999)(3846002)(2950100001)(4001430100002)(1220700001)(77096005)(1096002)(102836003)(2900100001)(107886002)(11100500001)(6116002)(82746002)(105586002)(81156007)(106356001)(110136002)(189998001)(3470700001)(106116001)(5008740100001)(101416001)(5002640100001)(19580395003)(586003)(66066001)(83716003)(50986999)(99286002)(33656002)(97736004)(76176999)(122556002)(230783001)(2906002)(87936001)(10400500002)(4326007)(99936001)(19580405001)(36756003)(92566002)(3280700002)(19617315012)(16236675004)(5004730100002)(86362001)(40100003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB706;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_D074283377444628AB253878CBB69481junipernet_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jan 2016 14:22:29.3554 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB706
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:35:30 -0800
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, David Sinicrope <>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [CCAMP] Response to Broadband Forum Liaison - Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces 18-Dec-2016
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:22:58 -0000

Gabriele, David,

My preference would be to let BBF decide upon the scope of their work. So whether BBF wants to deal with Fiber Channel should be their choice. In line with that thought, the physical composition of the architecture BBF wants to look at shouldn't  concern ccamp a whole lot.

In my view we should try to provide some guidance on how to deal with the transition from SNMP to yang in general and the control of optical interfaces in particular.

External bodies like to reference RFCs, but on the ccamp end there are still gaps:
1) existing SNMP RFCs do not cover the provisioning of the colored side of an optical interface
2) SNMP as means of provisioning is discouraged
3) yang models to provision interfaces are lingering in individual draft status since a while
4) other yang models that may be of interest to BBF are not in RFC status yet

So perhaps we should respond with a framework draft as discussed last IETF to outline what we are committed to work on so that BBF can built upon it.


Sent from my Apple ][

On 25 Jan 2016, at 19:39, Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) <<>> wrote:

Hi David,
Thanks for the reminder.

I have few general notes on the document.

  *   I would NOT limit the Client interface (Dd) to Ethernet or OTN.  Also Data center interfaces should be supported (like Fiber Channel).
  *   In WT-319 Part-B is mentioned the fully separated solution while in TR-319 the fully integrated DWDM interface in the client equipment.
     *   The two solutions can signal on the UNI interface different service request (Ethernet or OTN in the former, optical channel in the latter)
     *   I'd like to see also the Hybrid solution to be supported (i.e. Fully integrated on one side of the circuit and fully separated on the other side).
  *   Although are not yet RFC there are some draft proposal to manage the Protection and the diverse path.
     *   Support of LSP SRLG collection in the core and sharing the list to the Edge  (SRLG RRO)
     *   XRO to exclude critical elements on the network when signalling LSP (at node link and SRLG level) carrying protecting traffic.
     *   Diverse path signalling based on LSP-id
  *   I'd discourage the use of SNMP for the network provisioning and deployment.

Best Regards,



Gabriele Galimberti
Principal Engineer
Cisco Photonics Srl

via S.Maria Molgora, 48 C
20871 - Vimercate (MB)
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049

From: CCAMP <<>> on behalf of David Sinicrope <<>>
Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:53 PM
To: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: [CCAMP] Response to Broadband Forum Liaison - Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces 18-Dec-2016

Hi All,
Just a reminder to the CCAMP, PCE and TEAS WGs that we still have requesting a response.
Please finalize and send your comments to the respective WG Chairs if you haven't already.  We will coordinate a joint WG response.


CCAMP mailing list<>