Re: Label type to be used

[Ben Mack-Crane <ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com>]

Hi Kireeti,

See in-line.

Regards,
Ben

Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
>
>  
>
> > The original text seems to have a sensible pattern.
> > The proposed changed text does not.
> >    
>
> Your responses below don't bear out your comment above: your
> implementation uses port labels for [PSC, TDM/transparent], but the
> original text says to use SUKLM.
>
> The sensibility of the pattern is also questionable; an equally
> sensible pattern is to use port labels for [x, TDM/transparent].
If an interface supports transparent switching, it would fit the
type [x, FSC], and thus use a port label for transparent LSP requests.
So both [x, TDM] and [x, FSC] would fit the advertisement provided by
a TDM port that supports both TDM channelized switching and transparent
switching.  One would use SUKLM label in the first case and a port label
in the second (as indicated in the GMPLS-SONET-SDH draft, and in the
current text in the routing draft).

At least this is the way I understand the current docs.

>  
>
> > 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.
> >    
>
> I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that the best solution is
> to leave the text as is.  So far, there's been uniform agreement to
> change the text, with Ashok counted as an abstention ("I won't really
> object").
>
> The main point, though, is to come to a meaningful position that also
> jives with current implementations -- ultimately, standards are to
> enable interoperable implementations.
I thought my interpretation did match current implementations (as far
as I can tell from the discussion to date).


> <snipped>
>
>  
>
> > > 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.
> >    
>
> Noted.
>
> 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
============================================================