Re: SDH/SONET concatenation signal types

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Juergen,

You hit an area which needs more work... 

VC-n-Xv up to now is associated with co-routing of all X VC-n signals
inthe virtual concatenated group. The introduction of LCAS feature,
requires that the X VC-n signals within a VC-n-Xv signal are NOT
co-routed; the group should be at a minimum split over two diverse
routes. To support this, the VC-n-Xv and the VC-n-Xv LCAS
identifications are not adequatly representing the two (or more)
subgroups of X1 VC-n and X2 VC-n signals (X1 + X2 = X). Therefore, the
VC-n-X was introduced. To set-up a VC-n-Xv LCAS trail, at a minimum a
VC-n-X1 and a VC-n-X2 connection are to be set-up.

As such, we could restrict the set of Types to VC-n-X and at the
endpoints associate one or more VC-n-X's to the VC-n-Xv or VC-n-Xv LCAS.

trail						trail
endpoint					endpoint
VC-n-Xv <==> VC-n-X <==> ..... <==> VC-n-X <==> VC-n-Xv

	       /=> VC-n-X1 <==> .. <==> VC-n-X1 <=\
VC-n-Xv LCAS <=				    	   => VC-n-Xv LCAS
	       \=> VC-n-X2 <==> .. <==> VC-n-X2 <=/

In either case, the LSPs are "VC-n-X" types. 
At the end points of the trail (where you connect the Trail Termination
Point, via matrix connections in the Fabric, to the Link end points) the
additional mapping knowledge is needed.

Being at this point in thinking, I have to ask the question if we should
differentiate between the type of "signal" being transported and the
type of "transport entity" the "signal" is transported over. 

E.g. a "VC-n-Xv LCAS signal" is transported over a "group of X1 VC-n
link connections" and a second "group of X2 VC-n link connections", and
a "VC-n-Xv signal" is transported over a "group of X VC-n link
connections".
And in the simple case, a "VC-n signal" is transported over a "VC-n link
connection".


Regards,

Maarten



Heiles Juergen wrote:
> 
> I have a question on the different SDH/SONET concatenation signal types proposed in draft-lin-ccamp-ipo-common-label-request (e.g. VC-n-Xv, VC-n-Xv LCAS, VC-n-X). Defining different signal types makes only sense if a different behaviour is assumed. What is the difference between these types? Is my interpretation correct?
> 
> VC-n-Xv: fixed virtual concatenation; co-routed
> VC-n-Xv LCAS: flexible virtual concatenation; different routes
> VC-n-X: no concatenation; co-routed
> 
> For the later as it could be also used for all other signal types would it be better to introduce some kind of grouping for signal types that have to be co-routed?
> For all the 3 types how would you indication the timeslot, position of the individual VCs as the may/will not use contiguous slots. If different routes are used they even go accross via different interfaces and NEs and you cannot include  them in a single label request.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Juergen
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Lucent Technologies Nederland;NA&CPSE
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard