Versions Compared


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


  • No change merded on master branch this week. Only few backport changes on P and Si.
  • 7 changes from Bala, under review, related to intermediate high rates handling on renderer:
    • “Add missing ODUFlex interface” => Bala noticed working on intermediate rates that this odu-flex interface was missing. This change solves this issue, and added the corresponding test on the functional test suite. Discussion to explain Guillaume's CR-1. A priori, solved by change 99399, so ready to be merged after closin Guillaume's comment

    • “Generalize supporting interface (B100G) in portMapping” => generalizes the handling of supporting OTUCN interfaces. Ready to be merged.

    • “Change in interface naming convention” => this change is necessary to differentiate 200/300 and 400G interfaces. Ready to be merged.

    • “Device Renderer support for intermediate rates” => this change complements the Renderer to handle the creation of intermediate rate services (200/300/400G). Type of interfaces are derived from the modulation format. Gilles thinks that the 3 first changes could be merged as they are. The 4th probably need to be refactored a bit considering the comments that were made.

    • “Device renderer functional tests intermediate rates” =>provides the new functional tests associated with intermediate rate interface creation by the renderer. Still some open comments.

    • “Add support for 200G with 31.6 Gbaud” => 200G QAM-16 has been added to the specifications so that we need to handle 200G with potentially 2 options. The right option is selected from the modulation format and the width (QAM16 + Spacing/spectral-width = 50GHz à 200Gbit interfaces).

    • “Device renderer support for 100G on 7.1 models” => This this change currently fails, but the reason for this has been identified. AT&T has some equipment in its labs supporting this rate with 7.1 model.

  • 1 change from Guillaume on functional tests migration to RFC8040: Guillaume would like the team to review its change. Gilles has just started it before the meeting
  • 2 changes from Gilles related to Service model migration to 10.1. Gilles noticed that between OpenROADM models 10.0 and 10.1, there are some huge modifications in the way routing constraints are handled. TransportPCE internal model describing routing constraints was based on the OR Model R1.2. 
    • “Refactor transportpce-routing-constraint model” =>Gilles has started working on removing specific TransportPCE things from TransportPCE models for items that are somewhat duplicated.
    • "Remove transportpce-routing-constraint model" => remove also specific code that was writen to convert OpenROADM constraints to TransportPCE ones. This has a rather strong impact, since routing constraint are used by GNPy.