Re: Sonet Ring provisioning

[Suresh Katukam <skatukam@cisco.com>]

All,

Comments in-line..

> > Hi Suresh,
> >
> > Yes agree this is very complex if you try to create too much
> > dependencies between control plane and transport plane protection
> > interactions. That is why my simplistic approach:
> >
> >     * Control plane sees the entire ring as offering "highly available"
> >       connections
> >     * Control plane sets up a single connection across this ring
> >       "sub-network" (if you think this about this, the entire ring can
> >       actually be treated by a control plane controller as a single node
> >       where the BLSR ring nodes may be thought of as aggregate ports on
> >       the single node)
> >     * The ring sub-network, by virtue of providing the protection and
> >       knowing *exactly* how protection is provided can set up the
> >       protection channel automatically (but control plane need not know
> >       this as it is irrelevant to the control plane -- it only needs to
> >       know that the single connection is protected)
> 
> What mechanism will the ring use to setup the internal protection channel?
> 
> Will it require EMS/NMS intervention, as proposed on this thread earlier,
> or will there be another sequence of control plane messages (initiated
> internal to the ring) to set this path up. The latter would be prefereable
> if the objective is to have fully-automated path setup (otherwise, we
> have EMS/NMS intervention for the ring), but it does complicate the
> control plane protocols (since a new sequence of setup steps may
> have to be initiated internal to each ring on the path of the end-to-end
> circuit/trail that is being setup.

Yes, this is where the most of the problems are. I was referring to this
where GMPLS based messages will be used to setup a path around the ring.
I was trying to bring up the issues that may come up during the path setup
in the ring. 

Zhi and Maartin, Please let us know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,
Suresh
> 
> -Vishal
> 
> >