[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Optical Link Interface
At 03:40 PM 7/25/2001 -0400, Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
Andre,
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.
We went through
that before and the WG has decided to make
explicit the
clarification that the issue is just between
LMP-WDM and NTIP
and not between LMP and NTIP.
The whole point of LMP-WDM is to use an existing protocol to solve a new
problem rather than create a new protocol just for the sake of creating a
new one. If there is a technical argument against using LMP for
this problem, let's hear it!
Besides that I
think that some of the arguments
advanced
are:
1. The issue is
not how many protocols need to be
advanced.
This is a significant issue.
2. The choice of
advancing a given protocol should be
influenced by whether it is deployed or likely to be
widely deployed. And this applies even in the case
of
one single protocol.
3. No matter
what protocol(s) is/are selected,
it
is the market who makes the final decision.
Hamid.
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