RE: Generalizing WSON information...

[<julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hi Greg.

Just a small comment on Wavelength Converter Pool in section 3.2. In some other GMPLS contexts, this may be modelled as a label swapping capability, which is a common enough to be considered as "Generalizable" (it's even a typical case that becomes an exception due to our label continuity constraint). However, as for several other parameters, I don't think there is an actual need for it (this is already the default); but maybe we could imagine some MS-SPRing operations in SONET/SDH.

Regards,

Julien

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:32 PM
To: ccamp
Subject: Generalizing WSON information...

Hello fellow CCAMPers, at the 74th IETF meeting in San Francisco the 
question
came up as to what if any of the WSON path computation information model 
would
be useful in other technologies. Below is a first attempt at such an 
assesment
based on the current version of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-02.txt. 
Existing GMPLS
standard information is not included.

 From section 3.2 Node Information:

Switched Connectivity Matrix: Generalizable:Yes. This can be used to 
model any
type of asymetrical switch in any technology. Caveat: Besides optical is 
there
any current products that can make use of this?

Fixed Connectivity Matrix: Generalizable: Yes. This can be used to model 
fixed
connectivity between ports. Caveat: Is there any need outside optical?

Wavelength Converter Pool: Generally useful: No. This is very application
specific to optical switching systems.

 From section 3.3 Link Information:

Switched and Fixed Port Wavelength (label) Restrictions: Generally useful: I
don't think so but open to examples. These constraints must be shared in the
WSON case for two reasons: (a) the wavelength continuity constraint requires
global label assignment, (b) WSON devices present many different types of
wavelength constraints. Note that without requirement (a) then (b) 
doesn't need
to be shared since local label (wavelength) assignment would suffice.

 From section 3.4  Dynamic Link information

Available Wavelengths (labels): Generally useful? We need detailed 
wavelength
availability information due to the wavelength continuity constraint. 
Way back
in the old days many of us implemented bit maps to track SONET/SDH time 
slots
but this never made it into the standards. Any interest in that now? Other
examples?

Shared Backup Wavelengths (labels): Similar to the above but used in 
efficient
shared mesh backup path computation.

 From section 3.5 Dynamic Node Information

Wavelength Converter Pool Status: Not generally applicable. Too application
specific.

Comments appreciated

Greg

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237