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

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

Hi John,

Yes I agree. As long as the GMPLS nodes are consistent with the
non-GMPLS cloud, then there is no interop issue. 

As you said, to support arbitrary concat, the SONET/SDH non-GMPLS cloud
would also need to support this. Then it not only impacts new equipment,
but also require upgrades to embedded equipment as well for this to
work?

Zhi



John Drake wrote:
> 
> Since the non-GMPLS nodes don't understand GMPLS signalling, they are not
> interacting with the GMPLS
> nodes wrt signalling.  This means that the links between the GMPLS nodes at
> the edges of the non-GMPLS cloud
> are pre-configured SONET/SDH pipes.  This also means that as long as what
> the GMPLS nodes are doing
> with those pipes is consistent wrt SONET/SDH transport protocols, e.g.,
> arbitrary concat, then there
> is no interoperability issue.
> 
> I think that this is the point that Eric has been making, which has tended
> to get lost in the noise.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:54 AM
> 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