Re: Moving right along ...

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi Zhi:

Zhi-Wei Lin wrote:

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

People have been working on GMPLS for a while. Some of us are catching up
and some are deep down in it. Hence for some this is magic and for others this is
trivial. Let us be considerate to both. Now there is an architecture document,
which tries to capture most of the GMPLS approach. Please refer to this
document for 'some' of the answers.

>
>
> >>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>
>

Well.. I am one of them who is interested and am looking at this. Same would be
the case for many of us the vendors who will benifit from this work.

>
> >>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>
>

The goal is to keep it as tight timeframe as possible. This is certainly the motto
of IETF also. But we should be forward thinking too :-)

So let us see if GMPLS is meeting ASON requirements. Please refer to my other
mail in response to your summry.

Regards,

sudheer

>
> > 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 :-(
> >>>