LMP fraud

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

Hello Dimitri, Kireeti, Yakov, Jonathan,

I would suggest that you start reading
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-everdingen-ccamp-lmp-update-00

Only the pictures in this draft can clarify this confusing
discussion.

Terms that caused confusion are a.o.
- link
- TE-link
- data link
- data-bearing link
- name server

I guess it is only logical that I'm the one to solve the fraud:
I'm located in the same office as Maarten Vissers (SONET/SDH
functional modeling champion).

Thanks to the whole world for solving this complex problem,

Michiel

"Bernstein, Greg" wrote:
> 
> Hmm, once again terminology does come up and the layering concepts prevalent
> in the transport world.  DCC and various Jx bytes get associated with
> certain layers and not just with some generic "data plane".
> 
> Innuendo's and lack of civility aside, the question does bear asking (does
> LMP belong at the IETF) since the brunt of supporting LMP seems to be
> falling on vendors of SDH/SONET equipment that already has built in support
> for almost all the functions that LMP encompases.  This comes from lack of
> scoping in the LMP specification and leads to customer confusion.
> 
> Also once SDH/SONET overhead starts being "overloaded" this needs to be
> coordinated with the appropriate bodies (ITU-T, T1X1).  When I brought up J0
> based discovery back in 2000 at the OIF there were protests for this same
> reason.  Now we have the G.7714 recomendation at the ITU-T (general
> automated discovery) and a draft G.7714.1 on discovery for SDH and OTN.
> 
> What any of this has to do with IP is up to the ADs discretion I assume.  A
> IP router could run LMP so it could be considered in scop.  But then all IP
> routers with optical interfaces that I know of are SDH/SONET path
> termination equipment does that put all of SDH in scope?
> 
> Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:51 PM
> To: Bernstein, Greg
> Cc: Michiel van Everdingen; Yakov Rekhter; Jonathan Lang;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on LMP draft version 04
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Bernstein, Greg wrote:
> 
> > IP in the data plane for test messages?  Kireeti most optical circuit
> switch
> > equipment (switches) can't touch the IP in the data plane and wouldn't
> even
> > know that its carrying IP.
> 
> Once the circuit is set up, a switch would not need to know what it
> is carrying.  However, Test Messages are sent *before* set up.  In
> this phase, many switches are capable of terminating enough in the
> "data plane" to allow Test Messages to be used.
> 
> I think the problem is again one of terminology.  You may not consider
> DCC or J0 part of the data plane.  However, they are often inextricably
> linked with the data plane so that identifying which fiber/port/lambda
> a given DCC channel or J0 string is on automatically identifies which
> fiber/port/lambda the data link is on.  That is the entire intent of
> the Test Message.
> 
> > What are you getting at below with you're comment?  Note that J0, J1 or J2
> > strings are not even communications channels and hence you couldn't send
> IP
> > test messages.  Line and Section DCC are not considered data plane but
> > overhead in SDH/SONET.  Hmm, does LMP not belong in the IETF?
> 
> Perhaps it is a mistake to believe that this issue can be solved in a
> civil and especially in a technical manner.  Innuendos like your last
> Hmm comment are not in the least helpful, and many might even think
> that they were a deliberate attempt to sabotage the progress of the LMP
> in the IETF.
> 
> What I'm getting at with my comment is to reiterate the IETF's goals
> in this (and all other) matter(s), namely, to further the progress
> of the Internet Protocol and the Internet.  This issue is particularly
> sensitive in the WGs in the Sub-IP area.  Protocols like GMPLS and LMP
> may well find utility in non-IP networks; however, that is a far cry
> from mandating that a protocol must work in a non-IP environment.
> 
> Now, can we get back to technical matters?
> 
> Kireeti.

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michiel van Everdingen                                           |
| Systems Engineer                                                 |
| Lucent Technologies - Optical Networking Group                   |
| Larenseweg 50                  Phone : +31 35 687 4883           |
| P.O. Box 1168, 1200 BD         Fax   : +31 35 687 5976           |
| Hilversum, The Netherlands     mailto:MvanEverdingen@lucent.com  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+