RE: Arbitrary concatenation proposals

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

This is really odd.  Perhaps Eve would enlighten us on Lucent's change of
heart
regarding tranparency and arbitrary concatenation?  

I.e., just last week Zhi-Wei Lin was using the phrases "if an idea stinks,
it doesn't
matter how many times some idea is presented, it still stinks that many
times" and 
"if you see a million flies eating feces, would you also eat?" to describe
them.  

Certainly, he didn't feel that way when he included them in his draft?

Thanks,

John
-----Original Message-----
From: Mannie, Eric [mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:33 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
Cc: 'rcoltun@redback.com'; 'kireeti@juniper.net'; Dimitri Papadimitriou
(E-mail)
Subject: Arbitrary concatenation proposals


Dear All,

About the industry support for *arbitrary* concatenation, *transparency* and
*AUG-X, TUG-X, VTG*, I would like to recommend the reading of the following
draft that was presented at the last IETF meeting:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lin-ccamp-ipo-common-label-requ
est-00.txt

      "Common Label and Label Request Specification
        for Automatic Switched Transport Network"

Abstract: "This draft completes the [GMPLS-REORG] draft and details
technology specific issues. It proposes different approach and enhancement
to [GMPLS-SIG] and [GMPLS-SIGEN]...."

In this draft the authors proposed signal types that combine the coding of
the type of signal itself (including AUG-X, TUG-X and VTG), plus
transparency, plus arbitrary concatenation, etc.

I would like to know if their products support arbitrary concatenation,
AUG-X, TUG-X, etc ?

The authors (all from the same company) requested to incorporate their
proposal for arbitrary concatenation, transparency, and the "group type" of
signals into GMPLS. During this meeting, the authors were strongly convinced
that their proposal should have been merged within GMPLS. This was also
extensively discussed by e-mails.

>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....

Well, I hope this helps, at least this vendor considered these features
sufficiently important to write a draft of 16 pages, to present it and to
defend it.

Of course, Errera Humanum Est (or something like that :-)

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