RE: Optical Link Interface

[Bala Rajagopalan <BRaja@tellium.com>]

Andre:

I believe you're counting me in the "agnostic" category.
I hope this is not taken as "don't care", since I
do have an interest in making a choice quickly.

I have looked at the LMP-WDM draft (again) and the new
NTIP draft sent by Osama (attached). I see the following:

1. Both these solutions gloss over the details of
   auto-discovery between OXCs and WDM. (Note: the
   issues are the same regardless of the protocol used
   and neither provides full details. Furthermore,
   the hardware requirements and actions under both 
   are the same).

2. If we leave out (1), then the other functions are
   based on messaging over the control channel
   between the OXC and the WDM. This messaging
   can be done one way or the other. 

3. Both require control channel maintenance using
   (simple) keepalive.

4. It seems LMP-WDM can be streamlined to make it
   more lean and mean. 

Unless there is a significant technical issue
of one choice over the other, we have to consider
the fact that LMP-WDM has the first mover advantage.
Is it possible for
the NTIP proponents to seriously consider working on
(3)? Specifically, focus LMP-WDM on OLI requirements
only and not carry any unrelated LMP concepts into
LMP-WDM. Would this satisfy the design motivation for NTIP?

Regards,

Bala


Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: braja@tellium.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Fredette [mailto:fredette@photonex.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:52 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
> 
> 
>  From my count on the mailing list we have the following 
> results so far:
> 
> LMP-WDM:  8
> NTIP: 3 (All from Nortel)
> Agnostic: 1
> 
> And then there are the other 16 co-authors of LMP-WDM who 
> haven't posted 
> (perhaps because they don't think they have any new points to add).
> 
> Andre
> 
> At 02:00 PM 7/26/2001 -0400, Martin Dubuc wrote:
> >Kireeti,
> >
> >I have been following this thread with great interest. I 
> agree with your
> >conclusion that we should pick one protocol and move forward.
> >
> >You are talking about WG reaching a consensus. I cannot see 
> how this is
> >possible given the two very different views I see in the latest email
> >exchanges.
> >
> >How can we resolve the current dispute? What forum should we 
> use to make
> >a final decision on this?
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:57 PM
> >To: jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com; kireeti@juniper.net;
> >osama@nortelnetworks.com
> >Cc: bon@nortelnetworks.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> >vasants@nortelnetworks.com
> >Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
> >
> >
> >Hi Osama,
> >
> > > Even though I don't think reviving CR-LDP and RSVP-TE 
> history will get
> >us
> > > anywhere
> >
> >"Those who forget (ignore) history are doomed to repeat it."
> >
> >Yes, it makes for painful recollections.  We're living with the
> >consequences now, though, and I don't want to again.
> >
> > > the existence of two protocols here have proven to be useful.
> >
> >That's not what I'm hearing, either from customers, or from the
> >WG (admittedly, the sample is small).
> >
> >Listen carefully: I don't want LMP-WDM and NTIP moving forward.
> >Just NTIP (or NTIP and LMP) is OKAY if that is what the WG
> >consensus is.  LMP-WDM and LMP works too.
> >
> >So: you've got the WG chairs (scarred and grumpy), the ADs
> >and TA (speak up if I'm misrepresenting you), and customers
> >saying, Pick one protocol and move forward.  Let's do that.
> >And, please, as Vijay says, let's resolve this already.
> >
> >Kireeti.
>