[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Label type to be used

anca,

VC/STS signal:
- Label Request per GMPLS-SONET-SDH
- Label per GMPLS-SONET-SDH

Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal:
- Label Request per GMPLS-SONET-SDH
- Label per RFC 3471 Section 3.2 => port (represents
  the section/RS or line/MS)

Fully transparent signal:
- Label Request per RFC 3471 Section 3.1
- Label per RFC 3471 Section 3.2 => port (represents
  whole signal)

note: transparent =/= photonic (that LSC implies)

so your second assumption seems to be the right one

---

Anca Zamfir wrote:

Hi,
Does "label represents a port" means port label must be used in signaling? Or a label (from the respective LSP domain) that takes the whole port resource should be used? For example, in the [PSC, TDM] I think that signaling should still use a TDM label. Is this interpretation correct?
Thanks,
/anca

At 09:58 AM 3/18/2004 -0800, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

Hi,

Arthi and Lou pointed out the following typos in the GMPLS routing doc
(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt) which is now in the RFC
Editor's queue:

In section 2.4.7 is the following table defining the type of label
for various combinations of switching types:

      [PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032]
      [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
      [LSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda
      [FSC, FSC] - label represents a port on an OXC
      [PSC, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
      [PSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda
      [PSC, FSC] - label represents a port
      [TDM, LSC] - label represents a lambda
      [TDM, FSC] - label represents a port
      [LSC, FSC] - label represents a port

The one at issue is [PSC, LSC]; above it says that the label
represents a lambda; and in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully
transparent signal, the above indicates the label represents a TDM
time slot.  The proposal is to change this to:

      [PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032]
      [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
      [LSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda
      [FSC, FSC] - label represents a port on an OXC
      [PSC, TDM] - fully transparent signal: label represents a port
                   ("transparency" is defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH])
      [PSC, TDM] - non-transparent signal: label represents a TDM time
                   slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
      [PSC, LSC] - label represents a port
      [PSC, FSC] - label represents a port
      [TDM, LSC] - label represents a lambda
      [TDM, FSC] - label represents a port
      [LSC, FSC] - label represents a port

Please respond by Friday 3/26, 5pm PST with comments on:

a) do you agree with the above change?
b) in your implementation today, what do expect the label to represent
   i) in the case of [PSC, LSC]?
   ii) in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully transparent signal?
c) if you implement as the draft says, would it be a hardship to change
   this?

If we can get closure on this, I'll take up the task of modifying the
pending RFC with the ADs.

Kireeti.
-------






--
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491