RE: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports

["Bernstein, Greg" <GregB@ciena.com>]

Hi Nik and Zhi, et. al., a couple of points:

(a) Nik points out the usefulness of the "link property correlation"
function within LMP. Besides bundled links this could be applied to
configuring technology specific stuff like configuring a 1:N SONET/SDH
linear APS group.

(b) Zhi hit the reality of the situation -- Almost all of the optical
interoperability that we've seen (relevant to control plane and not, say,
components like amplifiers) has been either via SONET/SDH or Ethernet
signals.  

(c) Of the implementations that Bert listed, how many were being used just
for OIF UNI 1.0 discovery (SONET/SDH) interoperability rather than general
LMP?

Bert, Kireeti and/or Ron where are we in the process wrt the document?
Thanks

Greg B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nik Langrind [mailto:nik@equipecom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:26 AM
To: 'Zhi-Wei Lin'
Cc: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports


Hi Zhi,

I don't think that gaps in SONET/SDH fault management are the reason for
implementing LMP on SONET/SDH systems. As I understand it, the reason is to
allow two systems to auto-configure the component datalinks of their mutual
TE link.

Nik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:55 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> This is really illuminating. We've been discussing LMP and 
> scope of LMP, 
> and from what I gather (maybe I've misinterpreted or 
> misunderstood what 
> people say) was that LMP was supposed to be targetting pre-OTN 
> equipment, not SONET/SDH equipment since SONET/SDH already 
> has quite a 
> set of OAM capabilities that were much better (or at very least 
> comparable) to LMP (and they've been around more many many years)...
> 
> So I guess I like to ask people who's doing LMP for SONET/SDH 
> what are 
> the gaps they see in existing SONET/SDH fault management (as 
> defined in 
> G.783) that LMP is supposed to fill?
> 
> Thanks for any additional insights.
> 
> Zhi
> 
> 
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> >Here is the summary of the reports I have received.
> >
> >The questions to be answered were:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Type: vendor/carrier
> >>Company: (to weed out duplicates)
> >>Interest level in LMP:
> >>	For vendors:  opposed/yawn/interested/implementing/released
> >>	For carriers: useless/yawn/useful/testing/deploying/deployed
> >>    used with technology: ethernet/sonet/sdh/atm/fr/xx
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >Type:                Equipment   TestEquip or   Carrier    ISP
> >                     Vendor      SourceVendor
> >
> >Responses:              10            2            2        1
> >
> >Interest level:
> >  Released               2            2
> >  Implementing           6
> >  yawn                   1                                  1
> >  testing                                          2
> >  (very)usefull                                    1
> >
> >Technologies (not split by type)
> >  SONET - SONET/SDH      10
> >  Ethernet GigE           5
> >  ATM                     2
> >  MPLS                    1
> >  PXC                     1
> >  (D)WDM                  2
> >  Fiber                   1
> >  Transparent             1
> >  Sonet DCC               1
> >  POS                     1
> >  OTN                     1
> >  Lambda                  1
> >  Port Switching          1
> >
> >The sourceVendor claimed to have 10 customers, 5 were named.
> >One implementation was O-UNI version of LMP, so does not do
> >all the things described in current LMP draft.
> >
> >All in all quite a set if "implementations underway".
> >
> >Would have been good to see some more responses from Carriers or ISPs
> >Feel free to send your continued responses and I will try to keep
> >the list up to date.
> >
> >Bert
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>