[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Doubt in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
Manoj,
see my comments below.
Juergen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:22 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Doubt in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
>
>
> Hi All,
> I have a doubt in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt (page
> 19, Annex 1, example # 4 and # 5).
>
> The 4th example mentions request for STM-16 with multiplex section
> layer transparency is formed by the application of RCC with value 0,
> NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1, T with flag 2 to
> an STM-16 elementry signal.
>
> Does the SDH standard support the above request ? If yes, then what
> will be the label value if such a signal is requested from say STM-64
> or STM-256 link ?
>
The label request specifies only what kind of signal to setup, not how this signal is transported through the network. For sure the signal has to be transported transparently through the network.
For this special case the interface of e.g. a router itself is the STM-16 interface and the request is to transport this STM-16 interface signal with MS layer transparency through your network. Only the RSOH can be modified. According to SDH standards this can be done by using only SDH regenerator functionality at intermediate network nodes. for example you can transport this STM-16 over a WDM system that has SDH regenerator functionality at the transponders.
The transport over a STM-64 or STM-256 signal is not possible as it is not transparent for the MSOH.
> The 5th example is regarding the request for STM-4c signal.
> It mentions
> that STM-4c signal (i.e. VC-4-4c with TOH) with multiplex
> section layer
> transparency is formed by the application of RCC with flag 1, NCC with
> value 1, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2
> applied to
> an STM-4.
>
This is a useless combination in my view as it is a subset of the above request. As your LSP has to be transparent for the MSOH you cannot transport it via STM-16/64/256. You can transport it over SDH regenerator equipment, but in this case it doesn't matter if the payload is VC-4-4c or 4xVC-4 or 12xVC-3.
> Does the SDH standard support the above request ? If yes, then what
> will be the label value if such a signal is requested from say STM-64
> or STM-256 link ? What will be the difference in {SUKLM} if
> VC-4-4c had
> been requested instead of STM-4c ?
As you request a full STM-N interface signal in both cases I assume that you don't need a the {SUKLM}, you only need the port/interface ID. However I am not sure about this.
>
> Please comment.
>
> Regards,
> manoj.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>