RE: GMPLS issues (was - GMPLS Last Calls)

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Hello Yakov.....

> 
> Please note that there is a way to carry NSAPs in IPv6 addresses,
> although it does not support all types of NSAPs.  (see rfc1888 for
> more details). Please also note that GMPLS supports IPv6 (as well
> as IPv4). Finally, please note that a "perfect" solution (the one
> that addresses all the requirements of everyone) is a *non* goal
> for GMPLS.
NH=> That is a fair point.  Indeed, it is looking at a best fit from our
perspective that is driving us......and I feel sure our position would be
reflected by many large/established carriers.  But you need to talk to the
right people in those carriers to get the true view.......I suspect these
people will not be tracking any of this discussion nor have looked at the
issues in depth yet.
> 
> > And,
> > given this choice, that operator might also prefer to use 
> PNNI as the
> > signalling/routing solution too.  So, the issue seems not one of
> > 'necesssity' but simply choice......though there may be 
> certain technical
> > benefits of choosing 1 solution over another.  I don't 
> believe there is
> > anything technically wrong with saying this and giving 
> operators/vendors a
> > choice here is there?.....if there is please point out the problems.
> 
> Few points:
> 
> 1. Providing multiple choices for performing essentially the same
> thing, especially if these choices have similar characteristics,
> doesn't help to develop multi-vendor interoperable solutions.
NH=> Agreed.  But who calls the shots here?
> 
> 2. The fact that in the IETF there are not one, but two link-state
> IGPs (OSPF and ISIS) is a bug, and not a feature. 
> 
> 3. The same applies for MPLS signalling (CR-LDP vs RSVP).
> 
> 4. Suggesting yet another routing/signalling protocol, in addition
> to GMPLS, is adding yet another bug (not a feature).
NH=> Some bugs are better than others I guess.
> 
> 5. I understand that BT submitted a contribution to the ITU
> suggesting PNNI as (yet another) routing/signalling for optical 
> cross connects.
NH=> Better bug?

regards, Neil