[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LMP vs. NTIP vs. "funiculus"
Maarten,
You make some good points. I believe that one of the objectives of LMP is
to reproduce the capabilities currently present in the transport plane. As
you point out, with the advent of PXCs, some of the functionality
traditionally handled with in-band SONET signalling needs to be exchanged
in another way. We will also be dealing with other technologies, such as
Ethernet, that does not have built-in overhead.
Also, as we move towards distributed control of multi-vendor optical
networks via GMPLS, open protocols are needed between the different nodes
for exchanging the necessary information. In addition to the fault
handling capabilities you describe, I think we need discovery capabilities
that will reduce the required manual configuration.
I believe there are two questions at hand:
(1) Which protocol should be used to exchange the information in
GMPLS-controlled networks?, and
(2) What information needs to be exchanged?
The mpls, and now ccamp, working groups in the IETF have been working on
LMP to solve question (1) for the past year. Unless there is an
overwhelming need to create a new protocol, I think we should stick with
LMP (and I haven't even seen an underwhelming reason to switch :-).
Question (2) could use some additional discussion as it pertains to
transport systems. We have a proposal in draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-01. Some
good ideas exist in draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00, and you've made some good
points in your note.
Andre
At 01:05 PM 3/26/2001 +0200, Maarten Vissers wrote:
>When looking at the LMP work I am have the impression at the moment that
>it is partly duplicating capabilities already present in the transport
>plane.