[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doubt in ccamp-gmpls-sdh-sonet-01.txt
Hi Marteen,
You mean to say that hierarchical LSPs can be established
in 1st and 2nd case. Are these cases need to be pre-configured at the
time STM-N link is configured (i.e. the LOVC link ends at a fabric at
both sides etc.) ?
Also, in the following example u explained the allocation of VC-11 in
VC-11 link connection (3,1). How in signalling how do u specify that I
want VC-11 from (3,1) VC-11 link connection ?
Regards,
manoj.
>From: Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>
>To: manoj juneja <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Doubt in ccamp-gmpls-sdh-sonet-01.txt
>Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:02:00 +0200
>
>Manoj,
>
>manoj juneja wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In draft ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt, concept of hierarchical
> > sonet/sdh LSPs has been described. It mentions that the higher order
> > sdh/sonet LSP behaves as a virtual link with a given bandwidth (e.g. VC
> > -3). A lower order SDH/SONET LSP can be established through that higher
> > LSP. For e.g. VC-3 LSP can be advertised as a FA. In this case all
> > labels allocated between two ends of that LSP will have S, U and K set
> > to ZERO i.e. non-significant while L and M will be used to indicate the
> > signal allocated in that VC-3.
>
>In my opinion in all cases LOVC/VT connections will have S and U (and when
>transported in a VC-3/STS-1 also K) set to zero. This implies that examples
>2 to
>5 in section 3 of the document present non-existing cases. Also example 1
>is not
>correct. Are we misleading the reader here?
>
> > Please clarify how the higher order LSP will be established ?
>
>For a HO-VC-3 link connection the following values are applicable (case of
>e.g.
>VC-3 (4,1) in a STM-4):
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | ST=5 | RCC=0 | NCC=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | NVC=0 | Multiplier (MT)=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Transparency (T)=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | S=4 | U=1 | K=0 | L=0 | M=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>The above only results in the allocation of VC-3 link conneciton number
>(4,1) in
>e.g. a STM-4 to a VC-3 connection. There might be many more VC-3 link
>connections and VC-3 matrix connections present in the total VC-3 path
>between
>the VC-3 path termination functions.
>
>
>
> > Once the higher order LSP gets established, the lower order signals
> > within higher order signals will also gets allocated.
>
>Once two VC-3 path terminations are interconnected via a series of VC-3
>matrix
>connections and VC-3 link connections, there is a LOVC link established.
>The
>provisioning of the TU pointer processors at both VC-3 path termination
>endpoints determines now the LOVC link's substructure (i.e. TU-11, TU-12,
>TU-2
>structure).
>
>Three cases:
>1) the LOVC link ends at a fabric at both sides:
> Now there are no LOVC signals going over any of the LOVC
> link connections in the LOVC link.
>
>2) the LOVC link ends at VC-11/12/2 termination functions at one side and a
>fabric at the other side:
> Now LOVC signals are generated at one side and inserted into
> the LOVC link connections in the LOVC link. At the other end
> these signals end up at the ingress of a Fabric, where the transport
> stops until the moment the matrix connections are provisioned
> in the fabric. In the other direction, the fabric generates LOVC UNEQ
> signals, which will cause LOVC-UNEQ alarms to be raised (unless
> alarm reporting is disabled).
>
>3) the LOVC link ends at VC-11/12/2 termination functions at both sides:
> Now LOVC signals are generated at both sides and inserted into
> the LOVC link connections in the LOVC link. The creation of the
> VC-3 path also has created the set of LOVC paths. Assumption is
> that both endpoints have the same set of LOVC path termination
> points; otherwise there will be TU-LOP alarms.
>
>
> > Then how can I again allocate the lower order signals ?
>
>This is only important in cases 1 and 2. Here you have no lower order
>signals
>flowing, you have only LOVC link connections created which are waiting for
>a
>LOVC signal to be transported over it.
>
>Assume you want to transport a VC-11 over VC-11 link connection number
>(3,1),
>then you will see the following request
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | ST=1 | RCC=0 | NCC=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | NVC=0 | Multiplier (MT)=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Transparency (T)=0 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | S=0 | U=0 | K=0 | L=4 | M=7 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Maarten
><< mvissers.vcf >>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com