Open Transport Configuration & Control
Space shortcuts
Expand all   Collapse all
Child pages
  • 2020-11-11 5G-xHaul Meeting notes

Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Martin Skorupski

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Martin Skorupski

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

| 6am PST | 6am EST | 10:00 UTC | 11:00 CET | 12:00 EET | 15:30 IST | 18:00 CST | 19:00 JST |


Web Conference:

https://thorsten-heinze-telefonica-de.webex.com/join/andreas.lattoch.external 

Attendees

(please feel free to correct and update your names (wink) Thank you very much!!!) 

Info to: 

Goals

  • going forward

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
00:00chair topic 
no update 

00:00

Admin

Next meetings

2020-11-11: Martin Skorupski

2020-11-18: Martin Skorupski

2020-11-25: Martin Skorupski

2020-12-02: ???


PureEthernetStructure, HybridMwStructure

Daniela Spreafico

Please see email_

Please see related issues:

Please confirm by email to Martin Skorupski by end of this week (Nov6) that keeping FM and PM for xyzStructure is ok?


Status: no feedback per Nov11 positiv feedback to keep it as it is:

Decision: we keep xyzStructure as they are and close the issues above.


Roberto Servadio

RMON counter

  • RMON counter in ETH-Container, while others are in MAC-Interface
  • Open question: Where centralize the RMON counter
  • Working assumption: All RMON counters should be part of the EthernetContainer_PAC (Status and PerformanceMonitoring)
  • Next Step: 
    • update related ETH and MAC issues in OpenBackhaul for final proposal
    • AI Martin Skorupski consolidate proposed solutions 

Update:

Support is welcome to consolidate with respect to RMON


Martin SkorupskiOpen issues on OpenBackhaul

AI Martin Skorupski : consolidate proposed solutions and add to the agenda.

Starting point: https://github.com/openBackhaul/core/wiki/summary-of-issues (would this be useful?)


@Eduardo YustaFirmware

Use case discussion challenging the model proposal:

Please see updated slides (thanks Eduardo).

https://wiki.opennetworking.org/download/attachments/265093121/201102-TEF-working-document-FirmwareModeling.pptx?api=v2


Feedback from vendors:

  • ???

@Eduardo YustaLicense Management

Questions:

  • Are License be updated during life time of the device?
    • Answer: yes - there are such cases, particularity for feature enhancements or for later enabling a license - xPIC may come later, when the second link is deployed.
  • Understanding association between License Firmware, LTP, Hardware, Features/Function?
  • Do all devices require a license? 
  • Is a "feature-key" a "License" - from functional point: yes
  • What kind of License types needs to be supported - Software, Hardware, Interface, LTP, Capacity, Features, Function, ....
    • Frist idea: focus on interface-capabilities


First proposal:

  • ControlConstruct
    • LicenseList
      • License
        • Name
        • Type
        • Description
        • key (value; hash to be checked against, ...)
        • additional-configuration - (e.g. max capacity is xyz MBit/s)
        • State: activated; expired, no-active, ....
        • pointing to "something"


00:00Layering discussion (FCs, FDs etc.)Thorsten Heinze
  • Will publish in wiki the latest slide which is the result of discussions:
  • View file
    nameslides to be published.pptx
    height250
  • link to the contribution: 2020-09-16 5G-xHaul Meeting notes

  • Continue discussion from last week
  • Question:
    • 1x VLAN FD and 2x VLAN FC
      • Impact on MAC interfaces
  • 1:1 betweeen VLAN-IF-LTP and EthernetContainer-LTP
  • 1x physical → only one MAC-Interface?
  • MacSwitch attributes: mac-address-learning, aging-time - are such attributes sufficient to instantiate a new FD/FC objects.
  • MacFC could give a better overview - further clarifications


Agenda: 2020-09-30

Discussion and agreement about the following proposal:

Discussion

The following aspects are proposed to be decided by the 5G-xhaul subproject.

-          The ForwardingDomain shall be interpreted as a Potential for Forwarding (e.g. SDH Matrix).

[sko] Potential: something which allows the creation of “forwarding” based in the FD:LTP


-          The ForwardingConstruct shall be interpreted as an Actual Forwarding (e.g. Connection between two VC-12 endpoints at the SDH Matrix).

[sko] Actual: configured Forwarding – check operational states and traffic flow


-          There might be 0 .. * ForwardingConstructs inside a ForwardingDomain.

[sko] ok


Discussion on dependencies between LTPs, FD, FC and between the layers will continue...


Agenda: 2020-10-07

  • Last week we started discussing a HUB presentation using FD and FCs: but there are several ways to represent a HUB: Depending on the chosen representation there are different consequences. ... (see attachment: link)

Action items