[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Optical Link Interface
Osama,
[Note: I tried to trim this note down to the key arguments so that it is
easier to follow.]
My main argument (and I believe it is shared by the rest of the LMP-WDM
co-authors) is as follows:
1. LMP exists.
2. LMP solves most of the OLI problems,
3. Therefore, let's use LMP.
Osama's main argument is:
1. I don't think LMP should exist.
2. Therefore let's create a new protocol.
Given that the members of the working group have decided that LMP will be
developed, I don't think Osama's argument is reasonable.
At 10:41 AM 7/25/2001 -0700, Jonathan Lang
wrote:
- [Osama] what
is the limitation here? Are you saying having a simple design is a
limitation? Not everything has to be complex.
- [Jonathan] Other DWDM vendors are not happy with the
master-slave model. Also, the claim that NTIP is simple is an
explicit assertion and you seem to be trying to make an implicit
assertion that LMP is complex.
On the master-slave issue. There is clearly some information that
the line system does not need. For example, I don't expect the Link
Characteristics need to be advertised from OXC to OLS. I think this
works fine within the context of LMP.
You have made claims of complexity, but have never been able to back them
up with fact.
- Given the CR-LDP fiasco in MPLS, it was clearly stated by the ADs
and
- Working Group chairs in Minnesota that only one protocol will
progress in
- the IETF.
-
- [Osama] I don't understand why CR-LDP and RSVP-TE have been brought
to this discussion. This is a completely different situation. LMP hasn't
seen the wide deployment that RSVP-TE has. The example is
inadequate.
- [Jonathan] CR-LDP and RSVP-TE were both being developed prior to
either one of them being widely deployed. The effort involved in
developing 2 protocols concurrently to do the same thing is widely
perceived as being counter productive.
Given the choice between specifying and implementing two protocols that
do basically the same thing and one, I think the choice should be
clear.
Andre