Dear Greg,
both of your (a) and (b) examples correspond to operations
performed within a switching capability (i.e. TDM-SC)
while the sub-TLV here defined is designed and intended
to be used for cross-region operations, i.e. when passing
from a given switching capability to a different one.
"Adaptation" here describes a transition (from SCx to SCy with x!=y)
capability.
hope it clarifies.
best regards,
Greg Bernstein a écrit :
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