Re: Moving right along ...

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

Hi Sudheer, I tried answering some of your questions in another email, 
so I will put some short answers to this email...below...

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.
> 
> 


<z>This is where I keep suggesting that we put in clarifying text. I 
showed an example a few emails back about "A-B-C" configuration where B 
is not GMPLS aware. I want to bring out the point that the text in GMPLS 
is not clear about whether or not this is supported.

I believe GMPLS can support serial compound links, but we need to 
describe in the text properly (or more clearly) so that people are aware 
of this, instead of simply saying that "it is obvious to the informed 
reader". I think our goal should be to make it as readable as possible 
to the larger audience, not just a few people who has followed the 
mailing list. I keep getting reminded of how specific BGP documents are 
and how much information on BGP is actually not specified anywhere that 
is actually needed in order for it to work properly...this seems a 
little "elitist" to me...please don't flame me...:-)
</z>


>>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.
> 
> 


<z> :-) </z>


>>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...
> 
> 


<z>Well, let's see, I don't think anybody as really gone through the 
details of it yet. I would be very interested if anybody out there have 
done this already</z>


>>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.
> 


<z>I agree GMPLS is definitely a candidate. That is why I don't 
understand some people's mentality of "ITU against/versus IETF". I think 
they are complementary. The architecture experts are in ITU (at least 
some experts) and the protocol experts are in IETF (again, at least some 
experts). In terms of ahead of its times...don't know about 
that...depends on your timeframe...1 month? 1 year? 10 years? 1 week? :-)
</z>


> 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 :-(
>>>