RE: CCAMP WG action items

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Hi,

Some comments regarding Bonica's GTTP draft:

1) It relies on IP layer being present and IP management-plane protocol
(ICMPs) for the trace-probes, and trace-response to trace LSPs (layer
violation).
2) It is complicated. It requires many back and forth messages up and down the protocol stack (layer violation) and up and down the path to figure out the trace.
3) In hierarchical LSP case, not only the ingress node of the LSP under test
must run the GTTP, but all ingress LSRs that are in the middle of the LSP
under test and act as tunneling points MUST run GTTP => forklift upgrade required
4) It assumes reachability of all tunnel ingresses and intermediate nodes by the tracing entity. So, for example, all intermediate nodes processing GTTP have IP connectivity to the tracing entity. Therefore it requires homogeneous addressing at any tunnel level. Not necessarily a good thing for inter-carrier tunnels.
5) Does nothing to improve operational effectiveness for operators, ie
no automatic fault detection/handling....customer complaint still has to roll-in.

Yours,
-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:15 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: CCAMP WG action items
> 
> 
> 1) Final round of WG comments on GMPLS signalling drafts by August 27.
>    These include:
>    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
>    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt
>    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt
>    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt
>    
>    At that point, the authors (editors) incorporate the comments, and
>    the documents go to IETF Last Call.
> 
>    The pieces of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt that get
>    taken out are to be put in another draft that will be a CCAMP WG
>    _informational_ document.  When Eric submits this draft, we'll have
>    a three week WG Last Call on it.
>  
> 2) G.709: move non-ITU-standard stuff into a separate document.
> 
> 3) Reissue routing docs as CCAMP WG docs:
>    draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt
>    draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt
> 
> 4) For each of the following, do you think:
>    a. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
>    b. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
> 	(assuming that the non-ITU stuff is removed)
>    c. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt
>    d. draft-bonica-tunneltrace-01.txt
> 
>    should these be made CCAMP WG docs or not?
> 
>    Also, for (c), do you think that a GMPLS framework doc is useful?
> 
> 5) Tom and co-authors to send mail to the list stating the degree
>    of independence of LMP MIB to the MPLS TE MIB complex.
> 
> 6) Consensus: don't move forward with NTIP; move forward with LMP-WDM,
>    subject to due diligence that this work belongs in the IETF.
> 
> 7) Once new versions of the following drafts appear, we will have WG
>    Last Call on them:
> 	draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-00.txt
> 	draft-many-gmpls-architecture-01.txt
> 
> Kireeti.
>