Re: Proposed new working group draft -- MLN extensions question

[Greg Bernstein <gregb@grotto-networking.com>]

Hi all looking at the MRN extensions draft I've got two specific 
examples of "adaptation" I'd like to understand how to encode.
(a) SDH/SONET VCAT higher order (VC-3, VC-4) only supported
(b) SDH/SONET finer granularity switching capability. For example the 
ability to pull VT1.5, VT2 our of VC-3/VC-4 switch them and possibly 
pack them in.

Currently the draft has:

   0                   1                   2                   3  
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1  
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
  | Switching Cap |   Encoding    | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |  
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
  |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |  
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
 ---snip---
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
  |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |  
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
  |        Adaptation Capability-specific information             |  
  |                  (variable)                                   |  
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  

In both the cases mentioned above the Switching Cap (1 and 2) would be 
the same TDM, similarly the encoding types in both (1 and 2) would be SDH.
So what would be in the Adaptation Capability specific info field?

Also, to get from SDH to Ethernet via VCAT and GFP (or whatever) would 
require multiple adaptations would those be represented in a single 
stack within the Adaptation Capability specific info field?

Regards

Greg B.

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that the MLN requirements and protocol evaluation have completed 
> last call with just a couple of comments, and now that we have more or 
> less reached stability with our liaisons to the ITU-T on this subject, 
> we need to look for a solutions I-D.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-04.txt 
> has been running for some time and tracking both the requirements and 
> the lacunae identified by the evaluation draft. It seems that this 
> provides a good basis for the protocol work in CCAMP even if some 
> elements might change.
>
> Please express your support or otherwise for this I-D to become a WG 
> draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian

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