Osama Aboul-Magd Nortel Networks P.O. Box 3511, Station "C" Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y - 4H7 Tel: 613-763-5827 e.mail: osama@nortelnetworks.com -----Original
Message----- -----Original
Message----- Andre, Obviously I disagree with you in your
conclusion. There are number of factors that should be considered: - While LMP has been in STANDARD process
for some time, there hasn't been much deployment, if any, of it. Furthermore
the reality of optical networks today is that same vendor equipment is deployed
in a single span. Implementation of LMP in this case is at best optional. One
may choose not to implement LMP at all. IMHO tying this important interface to
the fate of LMP is not the way to proceed. How long LMP been at the IETF is
irrelevant. You're first arguing that
if the interface is based upon LMP it's not needed, and then arguing that if
it's not based upon LMP that it's critical - NTIP is a new TCP application in the
same way as LMP-WDM is a NEW application for LMP. Assertion not supported
by the facts - The issue is not really LMP vs TCP. NTIP
and LMP-WDM differ in the model itself. Your choice to use LMP to run LMP-WDM
on top of it forced you to treat the PXC and LS as peers. NTIP treats PXC-LS relationship
as master-slave. Non peer relationship suits this interface better. Assertion not supported
by the facts - To link with other standards bodies, as
far as I know T1X1, where the optical knowledge exists, is yet to ar rive
to a definition of this interface. More contributions are solicited to better
understand its need and applications. Given that, I'd like to understand the
rationale for the "rough consensus" reached at CCAMP mailing list.
Only 4-5 messages were posted to the mailing list and mostly from authors of
the OLI requirements draft. I'm sure that there's a
point here - I don't see harm in having two
protocols. The market made its decisions on the examples you mentioned, and I
am sure it will happen again in this case. The market has settled on
RSVP-TE, so there's clearly an existence proof that that the market
prefers a single solution [Osama]
totally a different situation. Please let me know how much LMP installed base
is out there today? However you seem to agree with me that we can trust the
market to make the decision. Regards; Osama Aboul-Magd -----Original Message----- Last month, the "Optical Link
Interface (OLI) Requirements" document There have been two proposals in the IETF
to satisfy the OLI requirements: 1. [LMP-WDM]: and 2. [NTIP]: LMP-WDM proposes extensions to LMP to
satisfy the OLI requirements, while 1. [LMP-WDM] satisfies the OLI
Requirements. 2. The extensions to LMP are quite natural
and fit within the spirit of the 3. LMP is a reasonably mature IETF
protocol specification:
4. It is better to have one protocol, than
two for a given function 5. Using the same protocol simplifies both
implementation and management on While there is no doubt in my mind that
NTIP could be made to satisfy the Comments please! Regards, |