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

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Manoj,

A STM-64 doesn't consist of 64 STM-1s. Instead, a STM-64 may carry 64
VC-4 signals. Instead of 64 VC-4 signals, a sTM-64 may carry a mix of
VC-3, VC-4, VC-4-4c, VC-4-16c signals or a single VC-4-64c signal (refer
to G.707).

A VC-4-16c signal can be transported in either one of the four AU-4-16c
tributary slots: (1,0,0,0), (2,0,0,0), (3,0,0,0) or (4,0,0,0); refer to
7.2.3.4/G.707.

Regards,

Maarten

manoj juneja wrote:
> 
> 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
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:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard