RE: Routing drafts

["Bernstein, Greg" <GregB@ciena.com>]

Hi Kireeti and the CCAMP mailing list a couple of comments:

(1) On draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt -- Section 6 is where all the
new material gets covered and is very important.  Can we pull the examples
of sections 6.4.9 and 6.4.10 into a separate section (i.e., section 7) since
they are quite lengthy and optional reading.  This draft contains the
important concepts of Link protection type, Link Mux capability and SRLGs
and should move forward.

(2) On  draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt:
(a) Why does Cisco get a set of reserved sub-TLVs? 32768-32772 - Reserved
for Cisco-specific extension.
(b) Big issue -- The parameters for representing bandwidth on a link are not
very appropriate for TDM signals or WDM signals.  I've included below some
more explanation taken from the IPO working group draft. However, this is
the same thing that led to us breaking out the traffic descriptor stuff in
GMPLS signaling for the SONET/SDH case.  This is really needed here too.

(From IPO working group draft on Inter-domain optical routing)
2.3	Differences between MPLS and Optical Circuit routing

The bandwidth accounting needed in optical circuit-switched networks is also
different than in packet networks. In packet networks using either ATM QoS
or MPLS-TE, complex statistical measures are used to characterize the load
on a link, often with varying degrees of accuracy.  The inexactness of such
measures and the "compressibility" of statistically multiplexed traffic
imply that a small percentage change in link utilization can usually be
absorbed by the network. 

By contrast, if an OC-192 link has just one STS-1 path occupied (less than
1% of the link bandwidth), it cannot accommodate an STS-192c path. Due to
the relatively simple finite multiplex structures currently use in optical
networks tracking bandwidth resources is much easier than packet switched
networks, however much stricter bandwidth accounting is required on circuit
switched links. In particular, it is expected that an individual optical
circuit switched link can be fully utilized, while due to queuing effects a
packet switched link on average can never be run at full capacity and is
typically run at less then 80% of capacity.  
  
Greg B.

----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Greg M. Bernstein, Sr. Technology Director, Ciena Corp.        

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 4:55 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Routing drafts

The two drafts:
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
and
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt

are, according to the authors, ready for WG Last Call.

I would like to judge WG consensus for this.

Thanks,
Kireeti.