RE: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion

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

Eric,
Eric, you are telling me that transport boxes are not allowed to support
services other than IP? Isn't this a choice to be made by individual service
providers? Why is a standards body trying to impede development of control
plane support for a subset of transport services?  What is the principle
here? I am not saying that a every vendor needs to implement all services in
the control plane. But if a vendor chooses to implement a set of services in
the data plane, then there should be standards for controlling them.

Let me offer you the analogy of how I see this discussion. Assume that a
road contractor is building a road because he knows that a lot of cars will
go through the area. But he decides that only cars carrying married people
will be allowed on the road. No cars carrying a parent and a child are
allowed. 

Monica A. Lazer
Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning

908 234 8462
mlazer@att.com


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:34 PM
To:	Lazer, Monica A, NNAD
Cc:	Yakov Rekhter; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:	Re: Generalized Signaling - LSP Encoding Type expansion

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