[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Optical Link Interface - Correction
Andre,
If in the following statement:
> 4. Fault Notification (By the way, I think the ChannelStatus
> Message defined in LMP-WDM could replace the current ChannelFail
> Message in LMP)
You refer to the added value of the "Condition" field then i agree
with your proposal.
In order to re-inforce my previous statement i am strongly convinced
that the proposed LMP (extended to WDM) approach is the best one. It
allows to have a complete solution for the IP-based distributed control
plane relying on 3 protocols (and not 4). My vote is clearly for
LMP-WDM.
Regards,
Dimitri.
Andre Fredette wrote:
>
> Bala,
>
> Yes, I counted you as "agnostic" in the LMP-WDM vs. NTIP debate, though I
> do know that you think the OLI is important and you care that the solution
> is a good one. I also agree (as I've stated before) that either LMP-WDM or
> NTIP could be made to work. I just believe that having the group focus on
> one protocol rather than two will have a better end result and aid in wider
> deployment.
>
> I'd also be glad to work on streamlining LMP-WDM.
>
> As I see it, the basic requirements are the same for both LMP and OLI for
> the following:
> 1. Control Channel Maintenance (A.K.A. a light weight hello protocol).
> 2. The ability to exchange information on links (link summary, perhaps with
> a few different TLVs)
> 3. Discovery/Test. (Note: The main purpose here is for two devices to agree
> on ID's for each link so information exchange regarding the links is
> possible. The only reasonable way it is possible to automate this, is to
> send some type of test messages on the physical links). To do this,
> you need to be able
> to terminate the links.
> 4. Fault Notification (By the way, I think the ChannelStatus Message
> defined in LMP-WDM
> could replace the current ChannelFail Message in LMP)
> 5. Notification whether a link is in use (ChannelActive Message).
>
> Because of this we have proposed basing the OLI on LMP.
>
> If these features need streamlining for LMP-WDM, they probably also need
> streamlining for LMP, so let's fix them once.
>
> If there are other LMP-WDM-specific procedures that need to be streamlined,
> I'm all ears.
>
> The major difference I see is that LMP needs is the ability to manage link
> bundles for the purpose of routing advertisements, but the OLI doesn't. In
> the LMP-WDM case, I was expecting we'd usually have a single link bundle
> (effectively ignoring this feature of LMP).
>
> Regarding the discovery portion of LMP (i.e., "link connectivity
> verification"), from a protocol standpoint, it should work. It does
> require that the PXC be able to terminate each port with an appropriate
> interface (from LMP: "For the LMP Test procedure, the free (unallocated)
> data-bearing links MUST be opaque (i.e., able to be terminated)"). The PXC
> would need to support termination of the various types of ports that could
> be used (e.g., SONET, SDH). But, this is more of a hardware requirement
> than a protocol requirement.
>
> Andre
>
> At 09:36 AM 7/27/2001 -0400, Bala Rajagopalan wrote:
>
> >Forgot to attach the new NTIP draft.
> >Also, I meant "working on (4)", not (3).
> >
> >
> >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: Bala Rajagopalan
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > To: 'Andre Fredette'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
begin:vcard
n:Dimitri;Papadimitriou Dimitri
tel;home:+32 2 3434361
tel;work:+32 3 2408491
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.alcatel.com
org:Alcatel Bell;IPO NSG - Antwerpen
version:2.1
email;internet:dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
title:Optical Networking R&S - Senior Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Francis Wellesplein, 1=0D=0AB-2018 Antwerpen;;;;BELGIUM
fn:Papadimitriou Dimitri
end:vcard