Re: LMP & neighbor discovery

[Michiel van Everdingen <MvanEverdingen@lucent.com>]

Hello Alex,


> I believe that neighbor discovery, being a rather new topic for
> the WG, would take some time to reach consensus on. This would
> delay the main LMP spec.

Are you sure that neighbor discovery is rather new ?

- I agree with Martin Dubuc that the current LMP spec can be used for
  neighbor discovery in point-to-point configurations. My understanding
  is that he is even using LMP for a.o. this purpose.

- Jonathan already explained how the current LMP draft "can be used to
  discover the connectivity of the data ports". Note that "discovering
  the connectivity of data ports" is alternative terminology to what I
  have called "neighbor discovery".
  Please refer to
    http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2002/msg00774.html


> > If neighbor discovery is not to be included in LMP, I think there
> > are at least some clarifications needed in the LMP draft on what
> > is and what is not supported. Furthermore, some clarifications on
> > 'control channel management' are needed.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me. Please work off-line with Jonathan on this
> (feel free to CC me).

I've tried to be as cooperative as possible by specifying the exact
locations in LMP that can be improved regarding "control channel":
  http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2002/msg00735.html


My feeling is still that this control channel concept is tied into
the current means of LMP to do neighbor discovery. I've expressed
that feeling several times on this list; no reactions. If this is
true, I would like to see the more general description of neighbor
discovery in
  http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2002/msg00750.html
as an alternative to "control channel management".

If it would help to progress LMP, I can propose an update of the
full LMP draft. Just let me know.



Thanks,

Michiel


Alex Zinin wrote:
> 
> Michiel,
> 
> >>  While I agree that neighbor
> >>  discovery is useful, I do not believe we should stop the LMP spec
> >>  from progressing.
> 
> > I don't understand this remark.
> [...]
> > If there is anything more I can do to help the LMP spec to progress,
> > please let me know !
> 
> I believe that neighbor discovery, being a rather new topic for
> the WG, would take some time to reach consensus on. This would
> delay the main LMP spec.
> 
> > If neighbor discovery is not to be included in LMP, I think there
> > are at least some clarifications needed in the LMP draft on what
> > is and what is not supported. Furthermore, some clarifications on
> > 'control channel management' are needed.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me. Please work off-line with Jonathan on this
> (feel free to CC me).
> 
> Alex

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michiel van Everdingen                                           |
| Systems Engineer                                                 |
| Lucent Technologies - Optical Networking Group                   |
| Botterstraat 45, 1271 XL       Phone : +31 35 687 4883           |
| P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA           Fax   : +31 35 687 5976           |
| Huizen, The Netherlands        mailto:MvanEverdingen@lucent.com  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+