orenais
commented
1 year ago Just to let you know that we finally decided to go for T-API 2.4.x in our development, since it garanties that we will get all what we need. Of course, this does not prevent you adding the OMS spec in R 2.4.1 if you think that make sense! Thanks
We have initiated some development in TransportPCE (OpenDaylight Optical network controller) to upgrade the PCE so that it operates on a T-API topology. Having some issues making cohabiting T-API models of different releases (problem with the import where version may not be specified) we need to focus on only one version of T-API models. It seems reasonable to focus on a version that will be implemented by others in a short term. Thus we would like to use 2.1.4. One of the issue I see developing the PCE for T-API (do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong, I begin with T-API models!) is that for ROADMs, we need to identify and separate NEPs depending on whether they are facing the line (Degree WSS termination points) or the transponders (Add/drop termination points). I planned to make this identification based on the presence of CEP spec in CEP associated with the NEP. For Degree TPs we would have an OTS and an OMS CEP spec, whereas for Add/drop Tps we would have only an OTS CEP spec. The issue I see with 2.1.x models, is that there is no OMS CEP spec. @amazzini Backporting some enhancements from 2.4.1 to 2.1.4, is the OMS CEP spec something you have planned? If not, do you think it would make sense and that it is something you could do? Thanks!