Re: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi Eric,

Maybe I'm confused but is it really talking about "unified transport 
CP"? I think we are still talking about an IP control plane (BTW, what 
is the definition of IP CP?), but using this IP control plane to allow 
requesting different types of transport plane for services that those 
transport planes can offer, still using the IP-based protocols.

Is that right, or am I completely uninformed?

Zhi


Eric Gray wrote:

> Monica,
> 
>     I believe this is both the crux of the argument and the point at which
> people keep arguing past each other.  Some people would like to see a
> unified transport control plane while other would like to see an IP control
> plane for transport networks.  These would be very different goals.
> 
>     If you'll bear with an analogy for a moment, imagine that you were to set
> out to design a bicycle.  Now along comes somebody that says - "hey,  it
> looks like you've got a pretty good start on a design for an all terrain vehicle;
> all you need to do is add this, change that and bing, bang, boom - we have
> an ATV."  That would be just fine, provided you didn't have any particular
> reason to be designing a bicycle.  But, assuming what you really wanted was
> a bicycle, this somebody could not be looked on as being helpful, could they?
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
>>[[Lazer, AT&T]] If GMPLS is intended as a transport control plane, then we
>>should work to make it that.
>>
> 
> --
> Eric Gray (mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com)
> http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray
> 
> 
> 
> 
>