RE: LCAS and draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-lbm-tdm-00.txt

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hello Maarten,

More about your e-mail:

>Looking at your simple example, I get the impression that you do not fully
>understand the use of the UNEQ value in C2/V5. The UNEQ value in C2/V5 is
>generated by the HOVC/LOVC connection function (see G.783) as part of the
UNEQ
>VC-n signal generation process.

Good, that's exactly what we want and need with GMPLS-LBM !

>The UNEQ value is not generated by the path
>termination function or its associated adaptation function. An adaptation
>function alsways generates an equipped-specific signal label (>= 2).

Good, that's exactly what we want and need with GMPLS-LBM !

We never said on which specific functions acts GMPLS-LBM. At one point in
the time the adaptation function has to generate an equipped signal, we just
said that we need to control that event.

The triggering of C2 is done in ONE frame, in LCAS you MUST wait for
multiple frames. So, what do you conclude for the LBM performance?

By the way, this is draft 0 and we could even think at using other C2
transitions as a trigger, like first using a test signal and then switching
to the real data signal. The issue is to find the most appropriate
transition or even the list of the possible transitions.

>I.e. the assumptions underlying your steps 2 to 6 are incorrect and not
aligned
>with the SDH specifications in ITU-T.

It depends what YOU understood from GMPLS, on-going GMPLS protection and
restoration work, and GMPLS-LBM of course.

Kind regards,

Eric