RE: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion

["Lazer, Monica A, NNAD" <mlazer@att.com>]

Dimitri,
Actually, it may be more accurate to put it differently - if GMPLS supports
only a handful of the services running on a given transport network, than
its value as a network's control plane component is diminished. 

Monica A. Lazer
Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning

908 234 8462
mlazer@att.com


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dimitri Papadimitriou [mailto:dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be] 
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 3:15 PM
To:	Lazer, Monica A, NNAD
Cc:	Ewart Tempest; lberger@movaz.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:	Re: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion

 << File: Card for Dimitri Papadimitriou >> Hi Monica,

Fine. Now we know the following: GMPLS is really attractive for 
carriers when it supports all transport technologies so it has 
to support Fiber Channel as well.

I wasn't aware that Ewart was capable to read in your mind ;-)

Regards,
Dimitri.

"Lazer, Monica A, NNAD" wrote:
> 
> Dimitri,
> I am just answering the PS question with this message.
> The short answer is yes.  The long answer is that the GMPLS control plane
is
> really useful if it can support connection management for all the
transport
> services supported by the transport network using GMPLS. Therefore, the
> carrier services section for the NNI document to be posted on the OIF site
> within a few minutes and the next draft of the carrier requirements IETF
> draft will both contain references to support of Fiber Channel.
> Regards,
> Monica A. Lazer
> Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning
> 
> 908 234 8462
> mlazer@att.com
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dimitri Papadimitriou [mailto:dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
> Sent:   Monday, October 22, 2001 2:47 PM
> To:     Ewart Tempest
> Cc:     lberger@movaz.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject:        Re: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion
> 
>  << File: Card for Dimitri Papadimitriou >> Hi Ewart,
> 
> If you take a look on the IEEE Standards you will see
> that GE is referred to as
> - 802.3z for 1Gbps (see below [1]) same exists for copper 802.3ab
> - 802.3ae for 10Gbps (see below [2])
> 
> So my question is what do you have in mind ? to separate
> these values ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dimitri.
> 
> PS: for FiberChannel sorry i am not an expert but is someone
>     targeting to use GMPLS for FiberChannel LSP ?
> 
> -------
> 
> [1] From - http://standards.ieee.org
> 
> Project scope: Define Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision
> Detection (CSMA/CD) Media Access Control (MAC) parameters and minimal
> augmentation of its operation, physical layer characteristics, repeater
> functions and management parameters for transfer of 802.3 and Ethernet
> format frames at 1,000 Mb/s.
> 
> Project purpose: The purpose of this project is to extend the 802.3
> protocol to an operating speed of 1,000 Mb/s in order to provide a
> significant increase in bandwidth while maintaining maximum
> compatibility
> with the installed base of CSMA/CD nodes, previous investment in
> research
> and development, and principles of network operation and management.
> 
> [2] From - http://standards.ieee.org
> 
> Project scope: Define 802.3 Media Access Control (MAC) parameters and
> minimal augmentation of its operation, physical layer characteristics
> and management parameters for transfer of LLC and Ethernet format
> frames at 10 Gb/s using full duplex operation as defined in the 802.3
> standard. In addition to the traditional LAN space, add parameters and
> mechanisms that enable deployment of Ethernet over the Wide Area Network
> operating at a data rate compatible with OC-192c and SDH VC-4-64c
> payload
> rate.
> 
> Project purpose: The purpose of this project is to extend the 802.3
> protocol to an operating speed of 10 Gb/s and to expand the Ethernet
> application space to include Wide Area Network links in order to provide
> a significant increase in bandwidth while maintaining maximum
> compatibility
> with the installed base of 802.3 interfaces, previous investment in
> research
> and development, and principles of network operation and management.
> 
> -------
> 
> > Ewart Tempest wrote:
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > Within section 3.1.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06 can
> > you please add additonal LSP Encoding Types for GE and FiberChannel.
> > GE is not really covered by the existing Ethernet related encoding
> > types, and FiberChannel is not covered at all. Thanks.
> >
> > Ewart