Subject: [CCAMP] Remain issue with lambda-label draft

From: Dan Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:14:01 +0800

Hi all,

On behalf of the authors of lambda-label draft, I would like to continue the discussion on this draft. 
Please provide your proposal on the mailing list.

BTW, the latest version of lambda-label draft can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-05

Thanks,

Authors

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lou Berger 
  To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:53 PM
  Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels and unique resource identification

  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

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

---

From: Dan Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:42:33 +0800

Hi all,

We have received a comment on this issue, and would like to introduce a new "Identifier" field in the label format by replacing the reserved field. This field would be under the control of a particular node and could be assigned as desired by the node.  To allow for remote reference (e.g., via ERO) the special value of 0 (zero) could be used to indicate that any node resource could be used by the node. There is no requirement that a node used a value other than 0, e.g., in the case where fixed lasers are used or ID values aren't needed by the node.

Please let us know if you would agree on this suggestion.

Thanks,

Authors

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan Li 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:14 PM
  Subject: [CCAMP] Remain issue with lambda-label draft

  Hi all,

  Thanks,

  Authors

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Lou Berger 
    To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
    Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:53 PM
    Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels and unique resource identification

    Authors,

    Much thanks,
    Lou

------------------------------------------------------------------------------