Re: Transparency at the IETF and OIF

[Ben Mack-Crane <Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com>]

Eric,

I think the debate on transparency indicates that the issue is not as clear
as we might think.  The OIF document you cite defines forms of transparency
that are very straightforward (flags 1,2) not the more complex forms in in 
the current GMPLS drafts (flags 3..10).  Also, these are easily provided in 
O-E-O or O-O-O networks operating at the lambda level, but there is no 
standard for providing these over TDM multiplexed SONET/SDH links.

So you cite broad support, but for what functionality?  If two vendors implement
the same signaling but different TDM multiplexing, that doesn't achieve 
interoperability.  Is there any way in the drafts to determine the scope
of application of the various signaling elements (that is, whether they
apply to UNI or NNI, whether they apply to specific network layers/technologies)?

Regards,
Ben

"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> About the transparency and its importance (especially for the people that
> want to remove it from the standard track, or remove purely and simply :-)
> 
> Extracted from the carrier OIF requirements for the UNI (oif2000.155.1):
> 
>    Multiple levels of transparent services SHALL be supported:
>    ·    SONET/SDH Line and Section terminating.
>    ·    SONET/SDH Section terminating with Line transparency.
>    ·    SONET/SDH with Line and Section transparency.
>    ·    Non-SONET/SDH transparent bit-streams. [later version]
> 
> This document was co-authored by ATT (Monica and John), UUNET, C&W, WorldCom
> and Deutshe Telekom. I agree with this requirement.
> 
> The document also list all the members of the OIF carrier group: AT&T, Cable
> & Wireless, Deutsche Telekom (D-Nova), Enron, GTS, KDD, Korea Telecom, NTT,
> Palm, Sita, Sprint, TDK, Telecom Italia, CSELT, UUNET, WorldCom.
> 
> There are 6 BIG carriers telling that they want to be able to control
> transparency at the UNI. Of course it means that they want transparency at
> the NNI because otherwise it doesn't make any sense, the transparency being
> implemented at the NNI, not the UNI.
> 
> I said many times that transparency is useful at the GMPLS UNI, whatever is
> happening at the NNI. This is exactly the point that make the OIF and the
> carrier group of the OIF.
> 
> So, what I am proposing is to keep the transparency that we have today in
> GMPLS for the UNI. This is not related to any transmission plane issue,
> because it is not implemented at the UNI.
> 
> Transparency is also supported by the OIF UNI by the way. This
> standardization body is considering it as an important feature. I don't see
> any valid reason in that context why we should not have it in GMPLS at the
> UNI.
> 
> I am very surprised that people fighting against transparency in GMPLS at
> the IETF (UNI as I explained already many times) are indeed co-authors
> and/or work for companies that approved transparency for the OIF UNI.
> 
> Here is the list of manufacturers that approved transparency at the OIF UNI:
> *Lucent*, Nortel, Alcatel, Tenor, Tellium, Callient, Sycamore, Acceligth,
> Ciena, Lucent, Brightwave, Caspian, Nayna, ONI, Cisco, Juniper, Zaffire,
> Avici, Laurel, Sorrento, etc.
> 
> To summarize, transparency is:
> 
> 1) requested by at least 6 big carriers.
> 2) requested by at least 20 manufacturers.
> 3) part the OIF UNI (from a standardization body).
> 4) implemented in many products.
> 
> >Again, in terms of metrics, what is considered "interesting for the
> >industry"? By the vendor community or the carrier community? I just want
> >us to be clear...no more, no less....
> 
> Is that a good "metric" ?
> 
> I think that we have a rough consensus to keep transparency in the standard
> track !
> 
> Amazing that nobody reacted against the OIF carriers requirements for the
> UNI, and against the OIF UNI specification... Even more amazing that some
> people have two different languages, one for IETF and one for the OIF !
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> Eric Mannie
> Technology & Standards Strategy Manager
> Network Engineering Strategy
> EBONE
> 
> Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
> 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
> 
> Tel:    +32 2 658 56 52
> Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
> Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18
> E-mail: eric.mannie@ebone.com