Re: Optical Link Interface

[Andre Fredette <fredette@photonex.com>]

Good points.

Andre

At 02:10 PM 7/25/2001 -0700, Sudheer Dharanikota wrote:
>Hi:
>
>My few cents .. being involved in these discussions.
>
>Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > c) The model: master-slave vs. peer.
> >
> >    This is the key debate (in my opinion).  Is LMP-WDM a "natural
> >    extension of LMP", as Andre says; or is the master-slave model
> >    more appropriate in this context, as Osama says?
> >
>
>The issue here is who has the control over which resource.
>The OXCs have control over the links and link bundles, and
>the DWDMs have the control over the fault reporting behaviour,
>the monitoring (may not be in the first release of the requirements)
>and the mapping of logical nature of the links and link bundles
>to the physical resources.
>
>In my opinion there are and there will be DWDM and OXC
>boxes which will not be capable of doing all the required
>features (as mentioned in the above paragraph). This leads
>to negotiation of features (or capabilities) between the two.
>
>Hence I feel this protocol LMP-DWDM or NTIP should be a
>peer-to-peer protocol.
>
> >
> > d) The transport protocol: TCP or raw over IP.
> >
> >    Does the reliability of using TCP as transport offer a real
> >    advantage in this context?  Or do the complications of
> >    managing failover with TCP outweigh this benefit?
> >
> >
>
>The main goal of these protocols is to report a failure as
>quickly as possible. A failure typically effect multiple
>links. Another observation is that the two elements (DWDM and
>OXC) need not be immediate neighbors. They can go through
>DCN. But in either case the amount of traffic in the control
>plane may not cause packet losses.
>
>With these two observations I feel that TCP is an over kill.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>sudheer