Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels and unique resource identification

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:53:22 -0400

Authors,
	Have you given any additional thought on the repesentation of tunable
lasers (and unique resource identification) beyond what is currently in
the draft? The current text is:
   If the node has a tunable wavelength transponder, the tuning
   wavelength is considered as a part of wavelength switching
   operation.

In the past, labels used for TE LSPs always represented a specific
resource that is uniquely identifiable by the node that allocates the
label and resource.  Such unique identification is important/required
for certan restart and other corner cases. Your current definition works
fine for fixed lasers that can only be mapped to a single fiber.  But,
the defined global label will not uniquely identify a resource on a node
when (a) tunable lasers are used, or (b) when a node supports multiple
fixed lasers that can be (optically) switched to a particular output
interface.

What are your thoughts on how to provide such link-scoped unique
resource identification in the context of your draft?

I don't think it'll be too difficult to address this critical point, and
see a couple of straightforward solutions if you'd like to discuss off-line.

Much thanks,
Lou

---

From: Richard Rabbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:22:50 -0700

sorry for the lag.
do you want to describe your use-case further in terms of what you can't do
and your proposed change?
thanks,
Richard.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:02:28 -0400

Richard,

Okay let me try again with a specific case.  If I have an rro or ero
that identifies the label (lambda) per your document, how does a node
know which laser the label corresponds to when all lasers in the system
are tunable?

Thanks,
Lou

On 10/29/2009 2:22 PM, Richard Rabbat wrote:
> sorry for the lag.
> do you want to describe your use-case further in terms of what you can't
> do and your proposed change?
> thanks,
> Richard.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Authors,
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>