RE: [IP-Optical] RE: GMPLS Last Calls

[shehzad.mirza@bt.com]

Hi,

I fully agree with Hirokokazu Ishimatsu's concerns on the GMPLS signalling
drafts.

(1) Decoupling of the control plane from the data plane should be clearly
stated.

This decoupling clearly has an impact on how the protocols should be defined
to cope with control plane failures.  

(2) Exclusion of NSAP

The GMPLS architecture document, (which logically speaking should perhaps
have been put forward for last call, ahead of the functional description)
explicitly excludes NSAP.  NSAP addressing is used within SDH/SONET
communications channels (DCC bytes) therefore the use of alternative
addressing within the same channels may have an adverse effect on
interworking with legacy equipment, particularly with regard to management.
This raises the general concern of what level of compatibility is
required/desired with legacy SDH/SONET equipment.  This debate whilst likely
to be contentious, is unavoidable as the interworking of control plane,
management plane and transport will have a direct impact on how this
equipment is deployed and the economics of whether such deployments will
ever pay off.

(3) Requirements from both security and OSS has not been discussed fully
yet.

Security concerns have not been fully addressed, particularly at the
architectural level.  The use of separate control network may necessitate
the need for 24 hour staff to protect against 'Denial of Service' attacks as
currently happens for IP router networks.  The interaction between the
management plane and control plane need to be addressed, for example it is
undesirable to have multiple alarms generated when circuits are created and
torn down otherwise the management of a large scale network will become
impossible.  Discussions on service aspects need to take place, otherwise
the adoption of GMPLS equipment may be hampered, by these (solvable)
concerns.

Best regards

Shehzad Mirza



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Hirokazu Ishimatsu [SMTP:hirokazu@japan-telecom.co.jp]
> Sent:	29 May 2001 02:46
> To:	George Swallow; ccamp; mpls
> Cc:	ip-optical; tsg15q11; tsg13q10
> Subject:	[IP-Optical] RE: GMPLS Last Calls
> 
> Hi,
> 
> From a carrier's perspective, my concerns about GMPLS signaling drafts
> are as follows:
> 
> (1) Decoupling of the control plane from the data plane should be clearly
>      stated.
> (2) Exclusion of NSAP
> (3) Requirements from both security and OSS (Operating Support System)
>      has not been discussed fully yet.
> 
> Best regards,
> Hirokazu Ishimatsu
> Japan Telecom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of George Swallow
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:52 AM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@uu.net
> > Subject: GMPLS Last Calls
> > 
> > 
> > This message initiates a last call on four GMPLS drafts.  The last
> > call is being issued jointly in the MPLS and CCAMP workgroups.
> > 
> > The drafts are:
> > 
> >     1.  Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description
> > 
> >            <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt>
> > 
> > 
> >     2.  Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions
> > 
> >            <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt>
> > 
> > 
> >     3.  Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions
> > 
> >            <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-03.txt>
> > 
> > 
> >     4.  GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control
> > 
> >            <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt>
> > 
> > 
> > The last call closes May 29, 12 pm GMT.
> > 
> > 
> > -  V2KG (Vijay, Vijay, Kireeti, & George)
> > 
> > 
> > ======================================================================
> > George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
> >                      250 Apollo Drive
> >                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IP-Optical mailing list
> IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical