Subject: Re: [Pce] Some proposal for the next revision of draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:50:52 +0000

Hi Ramon,

Thanks for your suggestion. I concur with your clarifying texts to keep the consistency between this PCEP extension and the encoding draft. 

Regards,
Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Ramon Casellas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:09 AM
To: Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Some proposal for the next revision of draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext

Dear co-authors,

While reviewing the current draft, I noticed the following: currently, 
FEC / modulation restrictions are proposed as one TLV per modulation / 
FEC as endpoint restrictions

However, in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-12 the actual TLV is a "fec 
list" or a "modulation list"

I believe that having cases where we have a TLV as one element and cases 
where we have TLV as a list is error prone, and in order to unify I 
would like to align draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext to 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-12
especially since the restriction TLVs can appear more than once --> add 
them as a list.

A first proposed new wording would be as follows:

<endpoint-restriction> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST>
<label-restriction-list>
                                          
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>...]
           Where

           signal-compatibility-restriction ::= 
<MODULATION-FORMAT-LIST>|<FEC-LIST>

with e.g.
         Value := A list of FEC type Fields

One issue remains. since draft-lee...rwa-02 only used one FEC element 
field / MODULATION element filed per TLV, it could use the element 
length field as a reserved field and add a flag X to exclude or include

A way to solve this is to allow <signal-compatibility-restriction> to 
appear twice. One for inclusion and one for exclusion., or to define 2 TLVs

<endpoint-restriction> ::= <LABEL-REQUEST>
<label-restriction-list>
                                          
[<signal-compatibility-restriction>...]
           Where

           signal-compatibility-restriction ::= 
<MODULATION-FORMAT-LIST-INCLUDE-TLV> <FEC-LIST-INCLUDE-TLV> 
<MODULATION-FORMAT-LIST-EXCLUDE-TLV> <FEC-LIST-EXCLUDE-TLV>

My main argument for this is to align fully with 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-12

Finally, I would like to consider the use case where the LSC LSP crosses 
an O/E/O. Do we need control on the modulation/FEC at that point?

Comments?

R.

-- 
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D.
Research Associate - Optical Networking Area -- http://wikiona.cttc.es
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, PMT Ed B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 -- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:58:22 +0000

Hi Cyril,

Objective functions for GCO contexts and others are definitely an optional requirement for PCEP extension for RWA. In the past, the PCE WG had one objective function draft separate from PCEP draft. So my inclination is to ask the PCE WG if this requirement should be a part of this draft or to separate this work into a new item. I will include this OF requirement in the revision, which will shortly be published. 

Thanks,
Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Some proposal for the next revision of draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext

Hi, 

Please find attached a proposal on the outline and text regarding a RWA aspect we did not consider up to now :   Spectrum optimization 
Flexigrid discussion brought this in the light but this is a fundamental DWDM RWA aspect, which can be best addressed IMHO by Objective functions,  Which will fit also nicely into the GCO context. I thinks it a better solution to draft-zhaoyl-pce-flexi-grid-pcep-ex.

I think that at least we should have some indication that standard DWDM has already two spectrum and the assignment should already be considered, Simply by taking the case of a 100Ghz grid : the spectrum can already overlap with 50Gh (and smaller grids) .

Your comments/refinement are welcomed.

 <<draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext-02-comments.txt>>
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria

Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
NWS DWDM RD
St.Martin-Str. 76
D-81541 München
Germany
mailto:[email-masked]
Phone: +49-89-5159-16934
Fax:   +49-89-5159-44-16934
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRA 88537
WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE 52984304
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin / General Partner: Nokia Siemens Networks Management GmbH Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Dr. Hermann Rodler, Lydia Sommer, Olaf Horsthemke Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats / Chairman of supervisory board: Herbert Merz Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 163416