1. 10/14/20051 Lambda Labels draft-shiba-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-00.txt Richard Rabbat Sidney Shiba

2. 10/14/20052 Wavelength Continuity Constraint RFC3471 defines port and wavelength labels to have only significance between two neighbors Label Set is used to limit the label choices of a downstream node to a set of acceptable labels. This statement seems to imply that the labels carried need to have “global” meaning Key issue is wavelength continuity The port/wavelength label as defined today do not provide global meaning to be used in the Label Set Subchannels field Impossible to differentiate port label from wavelength label Inconsistency between port and wavelength labels makes Explicit Label in ERO difficult to manage RRO with port/wavelength label mix without being able to distinguish the value type is not very useful

3. 10/14/20053 Why Wavelength continuity constraint

4. 10/14/20054 Label Set - global meaning label 1 3 5 7 1- 4 5- 8 2 4 6 8 1- 4 5- 8 Label Set = 1, 2, 3, 4 1 Label Set = 1, 3 Label Set = 3 Label Set = 5, 6, 7, 8 Label Set = 6, 8

5. 10/14/20055 Encoding of Wavelength (initial thoughts) Wavelength label encoding mechanism needs to be defined "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE- 754, 1985. 32-bit floating point encoding Wavelength value and frequency value can be used as label. A consistent labeling codification needs to be defined Frequency proposed Open for other suggestions once we agree on requirements Routing and signaling to be considered and addressed when necessary

6. 10/14/20056 Next steps Interest for various IETF people in this work in problem and solution work Suggestion to focus the next iteration on the draft on Requirements only Tomohiro Otani (KDDI Labs) is co-author Solution draft to be worked on Signaling extensions if needed Routing extensions if needed This is in charter Suggestion to have it as a WG document to work on the topic