RE: Optical Link Interface - LMP-WDM comments

[Andre Fredette <fredette@photonex.com>]

This remains the question of the day. (Or is it the past 6 months?)

What in LMP is not required for OLI?

 From my analysis, the only thing I can determine is that the notion of 
bundles is not needed on the OLS.  However, this LMP feature can be treated 
as an arbitrary "administrative grouping" of links which may prove 
useful.  If not, just use a single "bundle" on the OLS and effectively 
ignore this LMP feature.  Given this analysis, I think it is better to 
reuse an existing protocol than create a new one.

I have a number of issues with the content of NTIP, but I don't think it is 
worth debating them because I don't think we should create a new protocol 
to start with.  Furthermore, any of the content issues can be addressed in 
the context of either protocol.

Andre

At 01:47 PM 7/30/2001 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bala Rajagopalan
> >2. Rather than tailoring the procedures for the particular requirements
> >(OLI), the draft seems to be written with the goal of maximal reuse of
> >LMP. This sometimes adds to the complexity of the proposal.
>LMP-WDM was written to satisfy the OLI requirements and reuse the LMP
>protocol.  This is similar to the approach taken for GMPLS RSVP-TE and
>CR-LDP.
>
> >Specifically, LMP-WDM has many "extensions" to LMP, giving the impression
> >that LMP-WDM is a superset of LMP. I think there are differences in the
> >situations where LMP is applied as compared to LMP-WDM and these aspects
> >are not discussed sufficiently. I think a meticulous examination of the
> >OLI requirements and LMP procedures is necessary to just carve out a set
> >of procedures for OLI, rather than the superset approach. The maximal
> >"re-use" argument doesn't make any sense on the WDM side where there is
> >no LMP. Or, for that matter, where OXCs don't implement LMP. (This is
> >where NTIP makes a good point).
>Which LMP-WDM procedures are not required for OLI?