[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doubt in draft ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
Marteen,
Agreed, As per G.707, STM-64 consist of 64 VC-4 signals. I
have one doubt here. I want to discuss two cases in where two signals
viz. VC-4-3c (contiguously concatenated signals) and VC-4-3v (virtually
concatenated signals) have to be allocated to satisfy the two Label
Request/Path messages.
In case of VC-4-3c, do I have to allocate the contiguous VC-4s (viz.
say 4th, 5th and 6th and not 10th, 20th and 30th) ? If I allocate the
contiguous signal, does this mean in this case I have to pass only one
label corresponding to the multiplexing position of 4th VC-4 (Lowest
one) and other VC-4s will be derived by the receiving end from the
lowest signal.
In case of contiguous concatenation, Can the contiguous VC-4 signals
span the AUG-Xc in STM-N [ like STM-64 consist of AUG-64. Say it
consist of 4 VC-4-16c. If I have to allocate 20 VC-4s in contiguous
concatenation, can I span VC-4s allocation across the AU-4-16cs ?
In case of virtual concatenation, Can I allocate non-contiguous signals
(viz. 10th, 20th, 30th) ? In this case I have to pass 3 labels
corresponding to each VC-4 position in the multiplexing hierarchy.
Does this hold true for arbitrary concatenation also ?
Please clarify.
Regards,
manoj.
>From: Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>
>To: manoj juneja <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>CC: Eric.Mannie@ebone.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Doubt in draft ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:46:04 +0200
>
>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
><< mvissers.vcf >>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com