RE: Doubt in draft ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi Eric,
          Thanks for the reply. I have one more doubt :

A STM-64 interface consist of 64 STM-1s that are byte interleaved. If
I have to allocate a signal VC-4-16c (unstructured VC-4s) means CCT
with value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC as 16, NVC as 0,
MT as 1, T as 0 to a VC-4 elementry signal. Does this mean, I have to
allocate contiguous VC-4s in STM-64 link.
Say if I allocate 16 VC-4s as 10th VC4 --> 25th VC-4 on STM-64 link.
Then the {SUKLM} would be {s=10, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0} (lowest signal)
i.e. only one label will be passed in RESV/Label Mapping message. The
receiving node will drive the subsequent labels from this onwards.

In case of arbitrary or virtual concatenation, Can I allocate non
-contiguous signals from a link ? The label corresponding to each
arbitrary or virtually concatenated signal will be passed in
RESV/Mapping message.

If I have a STM-64 interface configured, and no signal is allocated yet from 
the link.
If I have to allocate a signal STM-3c-7v (virtual concatenation of 7 
STM-3c), Can I allocate the whole signal from this link ?

Does this mean I have to allocate 21 STM-1s out of 64 STM-1s and I have to 
pass 7 labels in RESV/Mapping message [ {1,0,0,0,0}, {4,0,0,0,0}, 
{7,0,0,0,0}, {10,0,0,0,0}, {13,0,0,0,0}, {16,0,0,0,0}, {19,0,0,0,0} ].

Does this mean that each STS-3c in STM-3c-7v should be contiguous ?

Please tell me if my understanding is correct.

Regards,
manoj.



Regards,
manoj.


>From: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>
>To: 'manoj juneja' <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: Doubt in draft  ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:02:56 +0200
>
>Hello Manoj,
>
>The virtual concatenation is indicated in a separate field (NVC). The 
>reason
>is to allow to code the virtual concatenation of contiguously concatenated
>signals (like the virtual concatenation of several STS-3c's.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Eric
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:03 AM
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Doubt in draft ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
>
>
>Hi,
>
>      I have a doubt in draft ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt :
>
>   The CCT field can have values no concatenation, standard
>concatenation, arbitrary, vendor specific.
>But why can't virtual concatenation ? It was there in original draft.
>But in the exmaples section for SDH/SONET signals, it is shown that a
>virtually concatenated signal can be built using NVC field with CCT
>value as 0. Please clarify the reason in doing so.
>
>Regards,
>manoj.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com