RE: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatena tion

["Yuri Landry" <yurilandry@hotmail.com>]

I agree!

>
>Rob, You proposal makes a lot of sense. Having the signaling standard
>support proprietary transport may jeopardize interoperability. The issue is
>not about GMPLS supporting non-standard rates, the issue is about putting 
>in
>formal and very specific support for a proprietary transport solution in a
>standard document for signaling without taking the transport portion to a
>standards body. Having formal signaling support for a proprietary
>concatenation may cause interoperability issues when other vendors have a
>different solution to the concatenation and while the signaling would
>indicate the concatenation, the actual transport may not work.   On the
>other hand we recognize that there may be a need for some interim support
>for proprietary solutions.
>
>
>Eric,
>Below I have some additional specific comments for the document GMPLS
>Extensions for SONET and SDH Control
>
>
>CCT field (3 bits)
>Since arbitrary contiguous concatenation is not a standard concatenation, 
>it
>falls within the vendor proprietary set of solutions.
>
>So the CCT bits may be used as follows:
>000	No contiguous concatenation requested
>001	Standard contiguous concatenation
>others	Vendor specific contiguous concatenation
>
>Alternatively, a better solution is to use only 2 bits for this field and
>use one bit to show whether contiguous concatenation is requested and the
>second bit to show whether it is standard or non-standard contiguous
>concatenation.
>
>
>NCC field (16 bits)
>This information is not sufficient.
>NCC needs better description than a zero or non-zero number.
>
>SDH and SONET Labels
>
>Text in this section (Section 3, paragraphs 5 and 6) indicates that the
>GMPLS proposal limits virtual concatenation to remain within a single
>(component) link. If I understand this correctly, it means that GMPLS will
>not allow inverse multiplexing (virtual concatenation) in the transport
>plane if it requires different component links. This is too limiting.
>
>Annex 1 (sent out by Eric Mannie on 5/22)
>Defines another type of concatenation - Flexible arbitrary contiguous
>concatenation without describing precisely how it affects the OH bits. This
>means that it will be impossible to have this type of concatenation in a
>multi vendor environment based only on the GMPLS signaling. If the 
>transport
>plane is proprietary, having the option in the signaling message will not
>fix the interoperability problem between two different vendors supporting
>their proprietary versions of arbitrary concatenation.
>
>Annex 2 (sent out by Eric Mannie on 5/22)
>Arbitrary contiguous concatenation needs definition work for
>interoperability.
>Flexible arbitrary contiguous concatenation may be available today to
>support contiguous signals, but it is not defined in the current standards.
>Clear agreements on OH usage are needed between supporting vendors.
>Maintenance and tracking of the signal needs to be well understood.
>
>
>
>Monica A. Lazer
>Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning
>
>908 234 8462
>mlazer@att.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:24 PM
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
>Subject: Re: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the
>concatenation
>
>All,
>     despite the heated arguments I think the discussion is important to
>have.
>
>I suggest that instead of  tagging non/pre-standard items in the current
>drafts
>that they be put into a separate Informational document  - this is the
>cleanest thing to do.
>We (the IETF) do have a tradition of publishing company proprietary
>protocols
>but not as standard track documents.
>
>thanks,
>---rob
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IP-Optical mailing list
>IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com
>http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com