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

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

Hello All,

So far, our discussions are focusing on the SONET/SDH draft. I'd like to 
re-direct your attention to other drafts. Rob's suggestion should apply to 
other drafts too.

One example, is the waveband switching and waveband label a standard or 
proprietary? Can author explain to me what exactly they means? How do they 
work? Any other standard reference? There are questions about it but no 
answer yet.

Regards,

Yuri.


>From: "Lazer, Monica A, NNAD" <mlazer@att.com>
>To: "'Rob Coltun'" <rcoltun@redback.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org,   
>ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com, q11/15 <tsg15q11@itu.int>,   "t1x1.5"  
><t1x15@t1.org>
>Subject: RE: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatena 
>tion
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 18:11:36 -0400
>
>
>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