Re: Transparency at the IETF and OIF

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

All,

> 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]
> 

The above transparency requirements are standardised transparency levels
supported by SDH/SONET and OTN. I.e.

>    ·    SONET/SDH Line and Section terminating.
This is provided by the SDH/SONET terminal equipment like ADM, DXCs, TMs
and by WDM/OTN equipment. This is describing the capability to transport
transparently a HOVC/STS signal. 

>    ·    SONET/SDH Section terminating with Line transparency.
This is provided by SDH/SONET repeaters and by WDM equipment including a
SDH/SONET repeater function in its interface ports. This is describing
the capability to transport transparently a MSn signal.

>    ·    SONET/SDH with Line and Section transparency.
This is provided by WDM and OTN equipment with CBR interfaces (bit
stream transparent). This is describing the capability to transport
transparently a STM-N/OC-N signal.



None of these transparency levels is related to the semi-transparent
STM-N/OC-N feature introduced in GMPLS. This semi-transparency feature
is the one being debated. 

OIF is not requiring the debated semi-transparent STM-N/OC-N feature in
GMPLS.

Regards,

Maarten

"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
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard