[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
Maarten,
It is clear for me and when comparing the April 2000 version
of G.707 and what we have today in the GMPLS document it is
aligned (for instance AUG-X are included in the section 6.2.3
Administrative Units in the STM-N of the last version) but
nevertheless in the last corrigendum that i receive on G.783
(March 2000) and living list it has not been done so... Since
the October 2000 version of the document is to be published
(not available at the ITU-T side), i propose here to postpone
the edition of this G.783 document in order to include the
needed changes in order to synchronize the ITU-T specification
with the last GMPLS SDH/Sonet document version (Ed. Eric Mannie)
which has demonstrated that current ITU-T standards clearly don't
cover some specific functions like flexible ACC. Therefore the
update must be done independently ... i mean whether GMPLS is
there or not !!!
What do you think about ?
Regards,
- Dimitri.
"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
>
> Re-hello Maarten,
>
> >I have been asking for this AUG-X addition.....
> >AUG-X/STSG-X, TUG-X/VTG are not defined as signal types in SDH/SONET
> >standards at all. The STSG-X has been made a signal type by my company
> >some years ago to support the requirements of some specific customers.
>
> Whaoum, you implemented a non-standardized feature and you re-defined
> SDH/SONET in your equipment without the permission of ITU-T :-)
>
> I think that this feature make a lot of sense, you are not the only one that
> requested it. In a similar way, other folks requested TUG-X/VTG and this
> complements very well your initial request. Moreover, these signal types are
> of paramount importance for GMPLS operations since they allow to open a
> forwarding adjacency (i.e. an SDH/SONET circuit for which you don't specify
> the content) that can be later on sub-structured in whatever you like
> (following the SDH/SONET rules of course).
>
> By the way, I don't understand why you said that you need a standard for
> AUG-X/STSG-X, TUG-X/VTG...
>
> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEW STANDARD REQUIRED FOR THAT !
>
> It does not change ANYTHING to SDH/SONET in the data/forwarding plane. It
> stays 100% PURE SDH/SONET as in the standards. It is purely a signaling
> feature. In addition, even the terminology (AUG-X) is defined in the
> standards.
>
> So the only issue that I see is that you don't want to have it because you
> can control it by a control plane (whatever is the control plane ???).
>
> >AUG-X/STSG-X, TUG-X/VTG are not defined as signal types in SDH/SONET
> >standards at all.
>
> "Signal type" is not a G.707 vocabulary, we used that vocabulary for GMPLS
> signaling. Even VC-4's, VC-3's, etc are not defined as a signal type. So do
> you want to say that we cannot neither open a VC-4 circuit because G.707 did
> not define the GMPLS concept of signal type ? That doesn't make any sense !
>
> Moreover, AUG-X, TUG-2 and TUG-3 ARE DEFINED in G.707 of course (that's part
> of the fundamental specification).
>
> >....I don't want to have
> >my requested feature treated any different than any other feature that I
> >have been argueing about (arbitrary concatenation, semi-transparent
> >STM-N).
>
> Are we playing a game here ???
>
> >As this AUG-X feature is beyond current standards (in this case
> >G.783), it should be first addressed by Q.9/15 and then by G.ason/GMPLS
> >series of control plane specifications.
>
> Great, the own ITU-T functional description is not aligned to its own
> protocol ! So it means that SDH does not work ! Seriously, who cares ?
> Protocols are implemented not functional descriptions that helps to
> understand protocols. I am sure that G.783 will be updated very soon to
> reflect SDH.
>
> Sorry I am lost, what is the goal of all your e-mails ? What do you want to
> achieve ?
>
> Rgds,
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:28 PM
> To: Mannie, Eric
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
>
> Eric,
>
> I am serious. (See also my reply to Greg.)
>
> You wrote:
> > Note that GMPLS doesn't do something strange about AUG-X/STSG-X,
> TUG-X/VTG,
> > they are defined in the standards, it is just a code type, like VC-4 or
> > STM-1. By the way, AUG-X in GMPLS was asked by your own colleagues.
>
> I have been asking for this AUG-X addition, with the assumption that I
> would write a contribution to get G.783 extended with an additional
> MSn/Sn_A function supporting this AUG-X feature... You find this once
> more reflected in my email to Greg this morning.
>
> AUG-X/STSG-X, TUG-X/VTG are not defined as signal types in SDH/SONET
> standards at all. The STSG-X has been made a signal type by my company
> some years ago to support the requirements of some specific customers.
> It's proprietary so far.
>
> But given the result of the discussions last week, I don't want to have
> my requested feature treated any different than any other feature that I
> have been argueing about (arbitrary concatenation, semi-transparent
> STM-N). As this AUG-X feature is beyond current standards (in this case
> G.783), it should be first addressed by Q.9/15 and then by G.ason/GMPLS
> series of control plane specifications.
> Up to that moment in time, it should be a vendor specific extension of
> G.ason/GMPLS.
>
> Regards,
>
> Maarten
begin:vcard
n:Dimitri;Papadimitriou Dimitri
tel;home:+32 2 3434361
tel;work:+32 3 2408491
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.alcatel.com
org:Alcatel Bell;IPO NSG - Antwerpen
version:2.1
email;internet:dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
title:Optical Networking R&S - Senior Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Francis Wellesplein, 1=0D=0AB-2018 Antwerpen;;;;BELGIUM
fn:Papadimitriou Dimitri
end:vcard