RE: Label type to be used

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Very sensible

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:15 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Label type to be used

Hi,

The original text seems to have a sensible pattern.
The proposed changed text does not.

In reviewing the discussion so far, it seems to me the best solution
is to leave the text as is, understanding that switches capable of
handling both TDM channelized switching as well as fully transparent
(port or lambda) switching advertise multiple switching types.

The tuples shown in the text under discussion do not appear in routing,
and labels are not a concern of routing, so rather than confuse
things further, it is best to leave the text as is.

Answers to the specific questions are in-line below.

Regards,
Ben


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?

No.

b) in your implementation today, what do expect the label to represent
   i) in the case of [PSC, LSC]?

Lambda.

   ii) in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully transparent signal?

Port.

c) if you implement as the draft says, would it be a hardship to change
   this?

Yes.

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

Kireeti.
-------

  

---

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================