Re: Moving right along ...

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Sudheer,

Another issue is ...

	- ASON is layer network based, GMPLS is not

i.e. a request for a connection within ASON is treated within the boundaries of
one layer network (e.g. within the boundaries of a VT1.5/VC-11 layer network, or
within the boundaries of a STS-3c/VC-4 layer network). A VT1.5/VC-11 connection
request is processed within the VT1.5/VC-11 layer network, using existing
VT1.5/VC-11 links (GMPLS: link bundles). If there is not enough capacity  in the
VT1.5/VC-11 links to support the request, the call fails. There is no "hidden"
set up of a STS-1 or VC-4 trail supporting an additional VT/LOVC link or
extending an existing VT/LOVC link. The set up of an additional STS-1 or VC-4
trail is supported within the scope of network planning and/or network
engineering. This is separated from the connection set up.

Regards,

Maarten

Sudheer Dharanikota wrote:
> 
> 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 :-(
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard