RE: Lambda LSP establishment

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hello Maarten,

A FA is mainly a routing concept (you advertise an LSP as a link in the same
routing protocol used for the routing of that LSP). The FA concept makes
sense for transport networks in many cases, not in other cases. FAs are
useful for SONET/SDH, but it doesn't mean that all possible kinds of
SDH/SONET LSPs can be advertised as FA. There is not an issue at all, this
is just normal operation.

A FA is a control plane feature, you cannot expect the IETF to change its
terminology for IP routing and signaling, that would not make sense and
doesn't present any interest.

>The same applies to the switching types TDM, LSC. These do not align
with the transport plane's layer network structure. They should be replaced
by the proper layer network types. I expect that it will take a few months
before this is resolved :-).

One should not forget that a lot of people that developed GMPLS work for
companies making transport plane products. They manufacture WDM systems,
photonic cross-connect, TDM ADMs, TDM cross-connects, etc. They are well
established and respected in the transport world.

GMPLS was NOT developed by a bunch of IP guys completely ignorant of
transmission systems. GMPLS was mainly developed by Sushi cookers (i.e.
transport plane experts) that came to the IETF because they thought that it
was the right place to develop an IP based control plane for a transport
plane.

The GMPLS work is mainly about OSPF, ISIS, RSVP-TE, CR-LDP, MPLS, IP
addressing, etc. The right place to do extensions on these subjects is the
IETF where the control plane experts are. This is the reason why transport
plane experts went to the IETF two years ago and started to work on GMPLS.

GMPLS is a great example of Sushi guys working with IP guys. It was very
successful considering that in the same time frame no other standardization
body was able to achieve any other control plane. There is certainly
something magic of having IP protocols used in multiple contexts.

I would appreciate if people could give the right consideration to the large
community of transport plane experts working at the IETF (this message is a
general one, not particularly intended to you).

As a conclusion, I think that the transport plane experts that developed
GMPLS are not dummies and know very well what they are doing. I appreciate
your collaboration and the one of Stephen, but I don't consider that your
are the only two people having transport and transmission experience in this
arena.

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Maarten Vissers
To: John Drake
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: 12/12/01 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Lambda LSP establishment

John,

As always it takes some time to recognise the need for changes; I
appreciate
that. If it is the intention that GMPLS is used to control the transport
plane
consisting of PDH, SDH/SONET, pre-OTN and OTN then it would be logical
that it
is based on the transport plane's definitions and terminology. The
concept of
the MPLS FA isn't applicable for the mentioned technologies. Trying to
stick to
it in GMPLS is causing confusion and most likely will cause problems in
the
future. Let's prevent that latter to happen, by replacing the FA by the
proper
transport plane concepts.

The same applies to the switching types TDM, LSC. These do not align
with the
transport plane's layer network structure. They should be replaced by
the proper
layer network types.

I expect that it will take a few months before this is resolved :-).

Regards,

Maarten

John Drake wrote:
> 
> fortunately, this is just your opinion

and some others...

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:31 PM
> To: manoj juneja
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Lambda LSP establishment
> 
> Manoj,
> 
> Forget the FA stuff, it is not appropriate in circuit networks. It
only
> applies
> to MPLS. We should remove it when it is used in relation with PDH,
> SDH/SONET,
> OTN and pre-OTN. The text in sdh-sonet draft should state that if
there is a
> LOVC link (IETF: link bundle/TE link) then the LOVC signals use a
label with
> "00KLM".
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maarten
> 
> manoj juneja wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marteen,
> >             The concept of FA is mentioned for SDH/SONET in
gmpls-sdh
> > -sonet draft. It says that if u have a HOVC trail as a FA
(advertized
> > as a link) then u can allocate the lower level signals in it by
making
> > the higher bits of label as 0s (i.e. S and U}. This is fine for the
same
> > technology. What about the case where the TDM LSP has to be tunneled
> through
> > the Lambda LSP ? What will be the form of label (i.e. {SUKLM} or
lambda
> > etc.) ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > manoj.
> >
> > >From: Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>
> > >To: manoj juneja <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
> > >CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > >Subject: Re: Lambda LSP establishment
> > >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:56:41 +0100
> > >
> > >Manoj,
> > >
> > >You refer to one wavelength to be available between A-E without
> wavelength
> > >conversion capability. This suggests that you operate at the OCh
layer
> > >network.
> > >Then you specify the capacity of the 4 OCh link connections (A-B,
B-C,
> C-D,
> > >D-E)
> > >to be "C". Say that C is about 10 Gbit/s. You then assume that
there is a
> > >request for an OCh signal with capacity C/4 (e.g. 2.5 Gbit/s)
between C
> and
> > >E.
> > >The result is that the OCh link connections C-D and D-E are
transporting
> > >the OCh
> > >signal (of e.g. 2.5G). These OCh link connections are now in
service and
> > >not
> > >longer available to an other OCh connection request. I.e. a request
for
> an
> > >OCh
> > >connection between A and E will be rejected.
> > >
> > >FAs are not applicable in the circuit layers. IF there is a trail
in
> server
> > >layer X, then there is a link in its client layer Y. X and Y are
thus
> > >different
> > >layer networks and signals.
> > >
> > >If C-E is a "FA", then in an OTN the C-E connection would be an OCh
trail
> > >supporting an ODUk (k=1 if OCh is 2G5) link with a single link
> connection.
> > >
> > >Note a FA in MPLS creates essentially a MPLS sublayer network. Such
is
> not
> > >possible in the SDH/SONET, OTN, PDH or ATM technologies.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Maarten
> > >
> > >OCh link connections
> > >
> > >manoj juneja wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >         If I have 5 nodes A, B, C, D and E connected as shown.
Assume
> > > > that only one wavelength is available on the path A to E (no
> wavelength
> > > > conversion capability is there on the complete path). Let the
capacity
> > > > of the wavelength be C. Further assume a request arrives for
> connection
> > > > from node C to E for a line capacity of C/4. This request will
be
> > > > successful as we have available wavelength. Now If another
request
> > > > comes at node A to establish another connection from node A to
node E
> > > > via nodes {A,B,C,D,E} for a line capacity of C/4. Should this
request
> > > > be successful as we have already allocated the wavelength ?
> > > >
> > > > If the previous connection from C to E of capacity C/4 had been
> > > > advertised as a FA, in that case will the IInd request succeed ?
> > > >
> > > > If the previous connection from C to E of capacity C/4 had not
been
> > > > advertised as FA then what will be the fate of IInd connection ?
> > > >
> > > >        A <--> B <---> C <----> D <---> <----> E
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > manoj.
> > > >
> > > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > ><< mvissers.vcf >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com
 <<Card for Maarten Vissers>>