RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
"Malcolm Betts" <betts01@nortel.com> Wed, 11 March 2009 12:49 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data0@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:52:05 +0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:49:16 -0400
Message-ID: <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516632BE3@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
Thread-Topic: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Thread-Index: AcmhvBwFi3BA2QIGTBKyIp3teN4M9wACQHGAACAygPA=
From: Malcolm Betts <betts01@nortel.com>
To: "O'Connor, Don" <don.oconnor@us.fujitsu.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Adrian, all Looking at the comments from Don and Dan I think we should take a step back and think about the requirements that the protocol extensions are intended to address: I think we can all agree that we must be able to report link impairments and the encoding we use should accommodate the parameters currently defined by Q6 and should be extensible to accommodate any parameters that are defined at a later date. Now to the more contentious issues: - How frequently do we expect the impairment parameters to change, is it in the order of mSec, Seconds, minutes, hours, days. I suggest that once it is beyond seconds the actual frequency becomes a "don't care". - Does the protocol need to activate/deactivate measurements on an in service link. If so what types of parameters would need to be specified for these measurements. My assumption is that if we define an extensible method for reporting link impairment parameters then we can use the same message to report any link impairments independent of how they are provided (provisioned, measured at installation time, measured in service...). I suggest that we phrase the liaison to get input from Q6 to help us define the requirements for these last two points. Malcolm Betts Nortel Networks Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393) email: betts01@nortel.com -----Original Message----- From: O'Connor, Don [mailto:don.oconnor@us.fujitsu.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:45 PM To: Adrian Farrel; Betts, Malcolm (CAR:X632); ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Adrian, all I agreed with " we should phrase the liaison to stimulate a discussion with the experts in Q6 on the value of making measurements on active optical paths" In returning to your draft liaison I do not agree with " In focusing on the third of these categories, CCAMP intends to base its work on G.680 and related recommendations with the following understanding:" We have not yet reached this level of agreement in CCAMP as no ID pertinent to WSON with optical impairments has progressed beyond individual contribution I do not agree with the following interpretation of G.680 " Where G.680 refers to "single vendor" domains, it does not mean single manufacturer, but rather "single system integrator". That is, the equipment is not "plug and play", but has been tested to interoperate and the network has been planned." I think the following sentence is misleading in the context alternative 3) "impairment estimation" " There is no requirement to measure impairments." Even for estimation, it may be necessary for the ROADM to make some measurements. It will be necessary for ITU SG 15 Q6 to define the details of any estimation scheme including any associated measurements. So my proposal is to truncate all the text after the definition of what CCAMP currently believes are the four alternatives. But add some additional text on discussion of WSON with optical impairments with ITU SG 15 Q6. I suggest the following " CCAMP participants have further identified cases where they believe it would be helpful to consider optical impairments during the control plane operation of a WSON. We also believe that this gives rise to four distinct deployment scenarios: 1. No concern for impairments or lambda continuity because there is sufficient margin in all impairments. (Original GMPLS) 2. No concern for impairments (again because there is sufficient margin), but lambda continuity is important. (The RWA problem) 3. Networks in which it is necessary to consider impairments, but there is sufficient margin such that approximate impairment estimation (using "simple" computation of the accumulation) could be used and still have a high probability that the optical path would be viable and would not perturb any existing paths. 4. Networks in which detailed impairment validation is necessary to perform a full computation of the accumulation of impairments including the impact on existing paths. It has also been suggested in the course of our discussions that G.680 can possibly to applied to address some of the requirements of 3) and 4). We would like to initiate discussions with Q6 on routing and wavelength assignment with optical impairments and the associated control plane support. We would like to apply existing ITU standards such as G.680, but also understand that if any new standard ROADM functionality is needed that such standardization would fall within the scope of ITU SG 15 Q6" For reference, some early work on impairment-aware GMPLS is listed below. This work is not yet adopted as CCAMP work. "A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-impairmen ts-02.txt "Information Model for Impaired Optical Path Validation" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-wson-impairment-info -00.txt Looking forward to a profitable meeting, Deborah Brungard and Adrian Farrel CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs" Regards Don -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:07 PM To: Malcolm Betts; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Hi Malcolm, > Adrian, I don't like either paragraph.... Consensus is a slippery beast. > The point I was attempting to raise, and I think Enrique made a > similar point, is that we should phrase the liaison to stimulate a > discussion with the experts in Q6 on the value of making measurements > on active optical paths. I don't object to this discussion, or any other discussion. Maybe we need to separate measuring impairments on the idle components of an OLS while other components may or may not be active (which is what I thought people wanted to do), and measuring impairments on active components (which I had not heard people suggesting they would do). A
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 O'Connor, Don
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 O'Connor, Don
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 O'Connor, Don
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Adrian Farrel
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Malcolm Betts
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Dan Li
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Giovanni Martinelli
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 O'Connor, Don
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Malcolm Betts
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Adrian Farrel
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Young Lee
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Malcolm Betts
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Adrian Farrel
- RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 O'Connor, Don
- Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Greg Bernstein
- Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15 Adrian Farrel