Re: Moving right along ...

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi Maarten:


Maarten Vissers wrote:

> Sudheer,
>
> At the moment I am unable to briefly summarize the differences between GMPLS and
> ASON. I was working from the perception that GMPLS could be one of the protocols
> supporting ASON. The technical comments I made during the last 10 months were
> based on this perception. Also the last comment describing the concept of serial
> compound link had this basis. Reading Yanhe's reply I had the impression that
> GMPLS is able to support serial compound links, but reading Eric's reply I got
> the opposite impression. Furthermore being very surprised by Eric's reaction on
> a pure technical issue, I composed a few challenging words to attrack more
> people to participate in the  discussion... :-)

I see one of the issue here being ...

    - Does GMPLS support serial compound links?

Let us enumerate few more questions and move the discussion to a technical
level again, we need participation especially from the folks who are involved
in ASON architecture work.

>
> Being impressed by the few hundred people attending the last ccamp sessions in
> London, I am surprised by the low percentage of those people being actively
> contributing to the correspondence. It can't be the case that only a handful of
> people have an opinion on these matters... and I believe the discussions would
> stay technical if more people express their opinion... there would not be a
> yes/no game between just a few people.
>

I thought this is how most of the standards meetings work. 5 % work, 95 %
try to gather industry intelligence ( :-) ) either by attending IETF or by following

the mailing list.

>
> With G.8080 (ex. G.ason) and G.7713 (ex. G.dcm) available it will be possible to
> start an evaluation of GMPLS as a specific protocol for ASON. As indicated in a
> previous email from Steve Trowbridge, ITU-T will make those ASON documents
> available to IETF so we can jointly work this evaluation.
>

Most of these documents are available on the t1x1 site. But what we need here is
the "delta" that is missing between ASON architecture and the view of GMPLS
architecture. Can you help us with this? We may start with a short list...

>
> The approval of the current ASON recommendations is just a first step within the
> larger ASON task. Work is started on other elements of ASON (G.rtg (routing),
> G.lm (link management) and pnni based specific protocol as an implementation of
> the protocol neutral specification in G.7713)),  discussions are started
> identifying further ASON elements, and work to extend G.8080 is planned to start
> after this SG15 meeting.
>

Obviously GMPLS is a potential candidate to solve the ASON issues. It may be
ahead of its time as far as ITU and ANSI are concerned. So let us ammend or
modify it to the ITU view on the transport control plane.

Regards,

sudheer

>
> Up to so far... {time to shut down my computer and go to the concert hall in
> Geneva... time to relax after a week and a half of hectic work over here...}
>
> Regards,
>
> Maarten
>
> Sudheer Dharanikota wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marteen:
> >
> > Can you briefly summarize the differences you see between
> > GMPLS architecture and ASON architecture? This has been
> > asked by many of the folks at IETF.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > sudheer
> >
> > PS: I thought these mails were about label format and suddenly
> > this is turning into an ITU versus IETF discussion :-(