[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Optical Link Interface
All,
second (or maybe third) in motion. I think Andre's proposal has a
very solid foundation. As I understand it even the people proposing
NTIP,
do so based on the argument that two protocols are better than one.
Somestimes even quoting "(I)SP's" wanting this.
Speaking as an operator I can't find any reason to complicate our
network
with two protocols (even though marginally different) that give me the
same thing. For the very same reason that we won't deploy CR-LDP, we
won't deploy a second optical link interface protocol. The only chance
that we will deploy NTIP is that it will be the one and only pick by
CCAMP, and I can't see that happen.
Let's go for LMP-WDM and let's stop the standardization process for
alternatives.
/Loa
Martin Dubuc wrote:
>
> I support your proposal.
>
> Martin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Fredette [mailto:fredette@photonex.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:01 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Optical Link Interface
>
> Last month, the "Optical Link Interface (OLI) Requirements" document
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt
> was discussed on the ccamp mailing list and achieved "rough consensus"
> according to our working group co-chairs. Given this, we'd like to make
> some progress on the protocol specification. I'd like to generate some
> discussion on this mailing list before the IETF meeting in London
> because
> meaningful technical discussion cannot occur in the time allocated
> during
> the meeting.
>
> There have been two proposals in the IETF to satisfy the OLI
> requirements:
>
> 1. [LMP-WDM]:
> "Link Management Protocol (LMP) for DWDM Optical Line Systems"
> http://www.photonex.com/other/draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt
> (note, this updated document was submitted Friday, so it should show up
> on the official website soon).
>
> and
>
> 2. [NTIP]:
> "Network Transport Interface Protocol (NTIP) for Photonic Cross
> Connects"
> (PXC)
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt
>
> LMP-WDM proposes extensions to LMP to satisfy the OLI requirements,
> while
> NTIP proposes a new protocol. We believe that the LMP approach is best
> because:
>
> 1. [LMP-WDM] satisfies the OLI Requirements.
>
> 2. The extensions to LMP are quite natural and fit within the spirit of
> the
> LMP protocol.
>
> 3. LMP is a reasonably mature IETF protocol specification:
> - It has been in the works for well over a year.
> - It is an official working group document.
>
> 4. It is better to have one protocol, than two for a given function
> (remember CR-LDP vs. RSVP-TE, and OSPF vs. IS-IS)
>
> 5. Using the same protocol simplifies both implementation and management
> on
> devices, such as optical cross-connects and routers, that may need to
> use
> both simultaneously.
>
> While there is no doubt in my mind that NTIP could be made to satisfy
> the
> OLI requirements, It is my strong opinion that LMP should be the
> solution
> chosen by the CCAMP working group due to the reasons outlined above.
>
> Comments please!
>
> Regards,
> Andre
--
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile +46 70 848 5038
Email loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW www.utfors.se