Re: Label type to be used

[Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@juniper.net>]

Kireeti,

I have also included your original questions for [PSC,LSC] and [PSC,TDM]
in this mail. Please see my answers inline.

thanks,
-arthi

> > 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]

>
> Okay.  Makes sense.  Questions for all:
>
> 1) do you agree with this change?
--------> Yes for the above changes. Yes for the proposed changes to
[PSC, LSC] case as well.

> 2) if you implement GMPLS for [TDM, TDM] links, do you use port labels
>    or SUKLM labels for the fully transparent case?
>    - if SUKLM, would it be a hardship to change this?
------> N/A.

  3) 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.

> 4) if you implement as the draft says, would it be a hardship to change
>    this?
-------> N/A.