Re2: Precisation on Suppression of Downstream Alarms...

[Germano Gasparini <germano.gasparini@alcatel.it>]

Hello everybody

I realized after sending the message that I expressed myself in a
potentially misleading way.

Just to explain the meaning of my posting:
- When I said I am "new in the exploder" I was simply meaning that
that was the first time I was sending directly a message to the mailing list.
Actually, I'm not new in the standardization activity (mainly ITU)
and I cooperate to some IETF drafts as well.

- The position I expressed was not meaning that I am against LMP
nor LMP-WDM, nor it shall be absolutely interpreted in that sense.
I was simply noticing that in transport networks there could be a
redundancy if alarm suppression indications are transferred both
on signalling and transport plane. However, it is also clear to me
(it was not in my posting) this redundancy does not cause any harm.

- Additionaly, also in transport network (real networks) there could be
situations when the alarm suppression indication is not embedded
(G.709 pre-OTN without non-associated overhead is a typical example).
In this case, alarm suppression in the signalling control plane would bring
a significant added value.

Hope this will help clarifying the picture.

Best regards
Germano Gasparini


--
Germano Gasparini - A-Optics Network Management Systems
==========================================================
Phone: 2-210.(3)4910    Fax: 2-210.(3)4185
Please reply at: mailto:germano.gasparini@alcatel.it