Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Then I guess this would fall under the "applicability statement" that
limits GMPLS to new deployments only, and will not work in its current
form with legacy systems?

Zhi



"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Hello Zhi,
> 
> >* 2 GMPLS-enabled areas connected by a non-GMPLS area. In that case, you
> might go over legacy systems. The no-GMPLS area is simply providing a
> "tunnel" between the two GMPLS areas.
> >Do we consider such examples?
> 
> This one possible scenario. GMPLS is not intended to work for the lowest
> common denominator at all. This is a difference with the ITU-T approach in
> transmission where you have to accomodate all possible cases. Some features
> in GMPLS will not make sense for some scenarios, but will make sense in
> other scenarios (generic-general GMPLS). ITU-T made excatly the same with
> plenty of their protocols (e.g. H.323). So you will not proof anything with
> your example, we know that already and this is not an issue.
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: 'Rob Coltun'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I'm not sure it's all new boxes. Would you consider this scenario valid?
> 
> * 2 GMPLS-enabled areas connected by a non-GMPLS area. In that case, you
> might go over legacy systems. The no-GMPLS area is simply providing a
> "tunnel" between the two GMPLS areas.
> 
> Do we consider such examples?
> 
> Zhi
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> >
> > Rob,
> >
> > It was my understanding that that BGP Capabilities and BGP Multiprotocol
> > extensions include a set of code points called "vendor-specific".
> >
> > For TE, draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt (and presumably the same for OSPF),
> > there is the following:
> >
> >        Sub-TLV type   Length (octets)  Name
> >
> >            250-254                     Reserved for cisco specific
> > extensions
> >
> > More importantly, what I thought Eric was saying was that the capabilities
> > under
> > discussion, i.e., transparency and arbitrary concatenation, didn't require
> > any
> > changes to the SONET/SDH standards.  Rather, it would require changes to
> the
> > cross-connects between the SONET/SDH spans.  Since these are new boxes, it
> > doesn't
> > sound like such a big deal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:20 PM
> > To: John Drake
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
> >
> > Hi John,
> >     valid question -  I don't think this is true for BGP. There are
> > extensions
> > to BGP that the working group has adopted.
> > Which TE drafts are you referring to?
> >
> > We've said from the beginning that we didn't want to define new "data
> plane"
> > functionality for technologies where the data plane is being defined
> > elsewhere
> > - whereas some of the functions aren't really new, and in cases might be
> > de-facto standard
> > we recognize that certain "data plane" functionality are beyond the scope
> > of the IETF to define - so this keeps us more in line with (in this case)
> > the ITU.
> >
> > Note that IETF has defined the
> > MPLS data plane - if some other body were to define new functionality
> > for the MPLS data plane it would certainly cause confusion in the
> industry.
> > This standard stuff is certainly not easy.
> >
> > Is it really that big an issue to just keep them in a separate RFC?
> >
> > thanks,
> > ---rob
> >
> > John Drake wrote:
> >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > Why isn't the proposed disclaimer sufficient?  If you look in the base
> TE
> > > drafts, for example, there are codepoints defined for use by specific,
> > > named, vendors.  I think the same is also true for BGP.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:54 PM
> > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: 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