Re: SDH/SONET in GMPLS

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Manoj,


manoj juneja wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> 
>     My question was little bit different. Let me re-pharse the question.
> In SONET, each VTG of STS-1 can have VTs of different size (i.e 1 VTG
> can contain 1  VT-6, other VTG within the same STS-1 can contain 2 VT-3
> etc). As VTG in SONET is equivalent to TUG-2 in SDH. Does this mean
> that each TUG-2 within STM-1 can contain different type of VC-X (X=2,
> 12, 11) i.e. one TUG-2 can contain 3 VC-12 and other TUG-2 within same
> STM-1 can contain 1 VC-2 ?

First of all a TUG-2 is defined within the payload of a VC-4 or VC-3; not within
a STM-1.
Each TUG-2 is treated independent of any other TUG-2. Please read G.707.

> 
> Furthermore, As per draft-mannie-mpls-sdh-ospf-isis-01.txt, It is
> assumed that every STM-1/STS-1 of STM-N/STS-M, M, N > 1 will have the
> same multiplexing capability. This type of restriction is not as per
> SDH/SONEYT. Does this mean this restriction has been kept for making
> the routing protocol simple ?

Also here please use correct language... STM-N doesn't consist of N STM-1
signals. STM-N consists of STM-N SOH (RSOH + MSOH) and AUG-N. AUG-N contains
either an AU-4-Nc or 4 AUG-N/4, etc. An AU tributary/time slot carries a HOVC
signal (HOVC: VC-3, VC-4, VC-4-Xc (X=4,16,64,256)). Every signal is independent
of the other signals.
GMPLS doesn't add a restriction to this... it allows even more variation if you
look in the extension document.

Regards,

Maarten

> 
> Regards,
> manoj.
> 
> >From: James  Scott <jscott@calient.net>
> >To: "'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> >Subject: RE: SDH/SONET in GMPLS
> >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:30:11 -0800
> >
> >hi manoj,
> >
> >mj> As per SONET standard, each STS-1 SPE
> >mj> is divided into 7 VT-groups. Each VT
> >mj> group may contain 4 VT1.5, 3 VT-2s,
> >mj> 2 VT-3s or 1 VT-6.  Furthermore, each
> >mj> VT-group shall contain one size of VT.
> >mj> however, each VT-group within STS-1 may
> >mj> be of different VT-size. Does this type
> >mj> of statement holds true for SDH also ?
> >
> >yes.  i don't recall that SDH spells out the
> >rules on trib mixing explicitly as SONET does.
> >however, the intent of the rules should be
> >applicable to either protocol.  that being,
> >to eliminate the possibility of inefficient
> >usage of the columns within the trib group
> >due to mismatched trib types being applied.
> >
> >mj> Is GMPLS supports this or it has some
> >mj> restrictions for these configurations?
> >
> >draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> >defines labels with VT/TU granularity as
> >well as mappings/encodings for both
> >contiguous and arbitrary concatenation.
> >this should supply vendors with an adequate
> >supply of rope.
> >
> >hope this helps.
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >james
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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