Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Potential enhancement for T-API 2.1.4 in the scope of TransportPCE PCE development #540

Open
orenais opened this issue May 4, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@orenais
Copy link

orenais commented May 4, 2023

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!

@orenais
Copy link
Author

orenais commented Jul 7, 2023

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant