Closed italobusi closed 7 months ago
2. Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16 3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14 4. Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?
Still need to be addressed
Currently a partial list, we need to decide if we provide a full list of configuration parameters, or import parameters. To be discussed on the list, and/or at IETF 111. Open questions, include:
We will need to wait on discussion to conclude on l0-types-extensions parameters before we can finalise tunnel parameters.
Italo and Sergio to discuss open issue and provide update for next call (if possible).
- Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16
- Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14
- Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?
Still need to be addressed
- Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14
Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14 in layer0-types-ext is closed so, accordingly, we should consider "termination-type" not needed
2021-11-29 Aihua/Italo/Sergio
- Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16
The fec-type is already covered by the transceiver configuration, so it could be removed from the l0-tunnel-attributes grouping.
Few additional doubts:
- Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14
More discussion is still needed.
Something at the tunnel level has to be configured e.g., when setting up an Optical tunnel to support an OTN link, it has to be specified whether the optical tunnel is supporting an OTU4 link or an ODU4 link.
In case of asymmetric client-signal configuration, it is not yet clear whether something for the tunnel's source and destination TTP has to be specified.
- Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?
Not discussed
Note that the wavelength-assignment has to be moved into this grouping:
2022-04-28 Flexi-grid call
This is the slide developed during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-00.pptx
2022-05-05 Flexi-grid call
These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-01.pptx
2022-05-12 Flexi-grid call
These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-02.pptx
2022-05-26 Flexi-grid call
These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-03.pptx
2022-06-16 Flexi-grid call
These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-04.pptx
Based on this analysis it seems there is no need for the termination-type attribute.
More discussion is needed to understand how the WDM tunnel can be dimensioned (100G or 400G) in case of a muxponder supporting different rates at the network side: the rate of the client signal is not the same as the rate of the WDM tunnel and the rate supported by the muxponder on the network side is not unique
2022-06-30 flex-grid call
Updated slides: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-05.pptx
2023-12-14: Agreed to remove bit-stuffing from l0-tunnel-attribute grouping Agreed to remove all identities for term-type
Few questions: