Re: Label type to be used

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>]

Hi kireeti

Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> Hi Dimitri,
>
>
> > > a) do you agree with the above change?
> >
> > yes, wouldn't be also wise to include the distinction for the
> > [TDM,TDM] case ?
>
>
> Could you clarify?

the proposal as it read is:
>       [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
>       [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]

the suggestion is also indicate the distinction for [TDM,TDM]:
        [TDM, TDM] - fully transparent signal: label represents a port
                     ("transparency" is defined in [GMPLS-SONET-SDH])
        [TDM, TDM] - non-transparent signal: label represents a TDM time
                     slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
>       [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]

thanks,
- dimitri.

> > > b) in your implementation today, what do expect the label to represent
> > >   i) in the case of [PSC, LSC]?
> >
> > port
> >
> >
> > >   ii) in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully transparent signal?
> >
> > port
>
>
> Thanks for your responses.
>
> Kireeti.
> -------
>
>
> .