The MPLS WG Archive

[bhuvan laddha <bhuvan_laddha@yahoo.com>]

Hi,
Thanks for the your valuable information ...

Please correct me for the following points :

1.a.Are the following labels valid for GMPLS LSP of
STS1 LINE SECTION TRANSPARENCY flag ?
Labels : S > 0  U > 0 K = 0 L = 0 M = 0 
It means , the whole time slot ( label range ) from   
( s > 0 U > 0 K = 0 L = 0 M = 0 ) to 
( s > 0 U > 0 k = 0 L = 7 M = 9 ) get allocated .

1.b.Now Can I use the next GMPLS LSP with the fully
transparency STS1 signals for the same SONET Network
Element [NE] ?
( pl. tell me whether we can have fully transparent as
well as any transparency LSP on the same NE ... )

1.c.If yes,the G_LABEL will get used for fully
transparent LSP.
Then same label value can get used for G_LABEL and
SUKLM Label .
So Is their any intelligence in hardware of Network
Element [NE] to identify this?

2. If I required the contiguous Label ( time-slot )
for the SONET STS_3_SPE for NCC = 12 
( RCC flag Standard Contiguous Concatenation is set )
;
Then time slot will be between 
 S = i and  S = i + 12 ( i > 0 ) whereas others fields
are from 0 to max values .
label will be( S > 0 U = 0 K = 0 L = 0 M = 0 N = 0 )

3. How do I get the sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13 of G.707 
( or SONET ANSI [T1.105] materials ) ?
Are these material freely avail on InterNet ?

Regards ,
--- bhuvan

--- Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
> hi,
> 
>  > I want to know -
>  > 	whether Section 3.2 of RFC3471 is applicable for
> any
>  > or fully transparent signal ?
> 
> for fully transparent signal only (i.e. in the
> second
> statement it clearly refers to "full" transparency)
> 
>  >   	If that so, section 3.2 of RFC3471 doesn't
> specific
>  > any format for SONET/SDH label.
>  > 	So, Is it fine to use generalized label in this
> case?
> 
> in this case, the G_LABEL of section 3.2 applies.
> 
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
> 
> bhuvan laddha wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would appreciate clarification for the following
> > points in the
> > 'draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt':
> > 
> > 1. Last paragraph of section 2. 'SONET and SDH
> Traffic
> > Parameters' states as 
> > 
> > " The traffic parameters and label encoding
> defined in
> > [RFC3471]
> >    Section 3.2 MUST be used for fully transparent
> > STS-1/STM-0/STS-
> >    3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal
> requests. A
> > fully
> >    transparent signal is one for which all
> overhead is
> > left
> >    unmodified by intermediate nodes, i.e., when
> all
> > defined
> >    Transparency (T) bits would be set if the
> traffic
> > parameters
> >    defined in section 2.1 were used."
> > 
> > Whereas one of the paragraph of section 3. 'SONET
> and
> > SDH Labels' states as 
> > 
> > " The label format defined in this section,
> referred
> > to as SUKLM,
> >    MUST be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests
> that
> > are not
> >    transparent i.e. when all Transparency (T) bits
> > defined in section
> >    2.1 are set to zero. Any transparent
> > STS-1/STM-0/STS-3*N/STM-N
> >    (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal request MUST use a
> > label format as
> >    defined in [RFC3471]. "
> > 
> > 
> > I want to know - 
> > 	whether Section 3.2 of RFC3471 is applicable for
> any
> > or fully transparent signal ?
> >   	If that so, section 3.2 of RFC3471 doesn't
> specific
> > any format for SONET/SDH label.
> > 	So, Is it fine to use generalized label in this
> case?
> > 
> > 
> > Please correct me if I missed something...
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> Papadimitriou Dimitri
> E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Private:
> http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
> E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
> Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
> Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen,
> Belgium
> Phone  : +32 3 240-8491
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com