1 / 6

Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers

Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers. A. Farrel, Old Dog Consulting D. King, Old Dog Consulting Y. Li, ZTE F. Zhang, ZTE R. Casellas, CTTC. Motivation.

bona
Download Presentation

Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid inLambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers A. Farrel, Old Dog Consulting D. King, Old Dog Consulting Y. Li, ZTE F. Zhang, ZTE R. Casellas, CTTC

  2. Motivation • The draft provides a “stake” in the ground for discussion of flexible grid labels. • Builds on RFC6205 (Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switch-Capable LSRs). • This document was merged with draft-li-ccamp-flexible-grid-label.

  3. Label Format • Flexi-Label Encoding • Currently extended to 64bits • Slot Width “m” field (Slot Width (GHz) = 12.5 GHz * m)

  4. Open Items • Q1: Do we want a 64bit label or truncate at 40bits, or pad at 48bits? • Might look more efficient to have shorter label. • Label object is aligned on 32bit boundary anyway. • Q2: Do we use a new value for "Grid" or re-use DWDM value? • We could go either way. • It looks to us that it is slightly more helpful for implementation. • Worth noting that: • Grid value is not tied to any external SDO. • Label type might be known from context anyway. • It may be worth supporting fixed and flexi-grid in some hardware?

  5. Open Items, continued. • Q3: Is the "m" field part of the label, the traffic parameters, or both? • We are only looking at label definition. • Traffic parameter definition is also important. • We feel that "m" is integral to the definition of the label.

  6. Summary & Next Steps • Overall, not an urgent piece of work. • We must wait for Q6/15 in ITU-T. • Deployment is not imminent. • Authors will continue to resolve outstanding questions/issues. • Synch with other flexi-grid efforts. • At some point, we need to decide whether label should be in a separate I-D (modeled on RFC6205), or bundle all flexi-grid work together.

More Related