[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: GMPLS Doubt
Agree with Maarten to support as a single type.
Also, the versions of the standards should not be differentiated. I had
posted a previous mail questioning the need for this to the exploder. The
latest versions provide for interworking with legacy equipment. E.g.
T1.105-2000 defines J0 as 1-byte or 16-byte and provides for interworking
with equipment not supporting J0. Defining a label for the 1995 version and
the 2000 version does not add any descriptive value and only will confuse
interworking. As Maarten notes, these differences need to be treated in a
generic manner.
Deborah Brungard
AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 7:29 AM
To: manoj juneja
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: GMPLS Doubt
Manoj,
manoj juneja wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> In the draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signalling-04.txt,
> different values of LSP encoding type are defined. What all values
> of LSP encoding type are currently supported by GMPLS ?
>
> The GMPLS draft does not specify the Label formats for ANSI/ETSI PDH
> etc.
More work is to be done here it seems... It should be possible to
request e.g. a DS1 or DS3 connection through a SDH/SONET network. When
crossing the UNI, the DS1/DS3 connection request is converted into a
VT1.5/STS1 connection request within the SDH/SONET network. So perhaps
only the UNI format is required.
> I think the only supported values of LSP encoding type are :
>
> SDH ITU-T G.707 1996
> SONET ANSI T1.105-1995
> SDH ITU-T G.707 2000
> SONET ANSI T1.105-2000
SDH and SONET can be treated as a single type, and this is the direction
in the development of G.ason (ITU-T). Let's make sure that GMPLS does
follow this; otherwise confusion will be the result.
Note that a number of the presumed differences between SONET and SDH may
also be present between SDH and SDH (e.g. 16/64 byte trace identifiers).
And similarly, some of the presumed SONET/SDH differences may also be
present between SONET and SONET (e.g. PDI, E-RDI).
The interworking issues associated with these "differences" must thus be
treated in a generic SONET/SDH independent manner.
Regards,
Maarten
> Fiber
> Lambda
> Packet [ classical MPLS : IP Labels/FR Labels/ATM Labels ]
>
> Please comment.
>
> Regards,
> manoj.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com