Re: draft-otani-ccamp-cspf-constrains-03

[ogaki <ke-oogaki@cn.kddilabs.jp>]

Hi Hidet,

-03 seems to omit following cases when I divided the table.
In -03, I intended to correct the bandwidth constraint from exact
match(==) to below(<=) in lambda encoding cases of table 2(-02).

Sorry,
Kenichi Ogaki

Hidet Sugiyama wrote:

>Hi,
> 
>I would like to confirm how Ingress node(Router1) computes GMPLS LSC LSP on the following multi encoding scenario.
> 
>A)  Router1--(Ethernet)---ROADM1---(Lambda)---ROADM2---(Ethernet)--Router2
>B)  Router1--(SONET)---ROADM1---(Lambda)---ROADM2---(SONET)--Router2
>C)  Router1--(Ethernet)---ROADM1---(Lambda)---ROADM2---(Ethernet)---OXC1---(Lambda)---OXC2--(Ethernet)--Router2
>D)  Router1--(SONET)---ROADM1---(Lambda)---ROADM2---(SONET)---OXC1---(Lambda)---OXC2--(SONET)--Router2
>*  ( ) Encoding type
>*  ROADM and OXC are provided by different vendor.
> 
>I read draft-otani-ccamp-cspf-constrains-03 and -02.
>I think, draft-otani-ccamp-cspf-constrains-02 (table 2) has covered all above case.
>but, draft-otani-ccamp-cspf-constrains-03 (table 2.2) is not covered yet.
> 
>Any advice is appreciated.
> 
>Thanks,
>Hidet Sugiyama
>
>
>  
>