RE: LMP fraud

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

Hmm, interesting attitude Yakov.  However, it seems that when two very
disparate world such as optical transport and IP routing attempt to
synergize that a bit more preciseness in terminology and assumptions.

Why are you so concerned with LMP?  The SONET/SDH interfaces on your routers
provide just about all this functionality and more.  

For example for fault localization the SONET/SDH framer and packet mapping
chips on your router most likely supports section, line and path AIS
(downstream alarm indication signal) and line and path RDI (sent upstream to
indicate remote defect indication).  All without software intervention in
less than a mili-second time frame. That's why these are used to trigger
protection/restoration action.

These same chips also will provide for end to end path, nearest line,
nearest section performance monitoring in terms of fairly exact bit error
rate numbers.

Finally these chips also will allows the insertion of trail trace identifier
strings via (J0, J1, or J2) that with proper use can be used for automated
discovery.  Or provide for section, line, or path overhead communication
channels that could also be used for discovery.

Hence why would one ever want to use LMP between two pieces of equipment
utilizing SONET/SDH interfaces?  LMP was aimed a particular type of
transparent OXC that chose not to implement any of the above functionality.
I'm not sure why the rest of us should be burdened with supporting LMP.
Maybe in fact the confusion is over the state of the art in transport
network technology and standards, of which, a group such as CCAMP, if it is
to venture into this area, should be much more aware.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:03 AM
To: Michiel van Everdingen
Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; 'Kireeti Kompella'; Jonathan Lang;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: LMP fraud 


Michiel,

> Hello Dimitri, Kireeti, Yakov, Jonathan,
> 
> I would suggest that you start reading
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-everdingen-ccamp-lmp-update-00

After careful consideration I decided to ignore your suggestion.

> 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 understand that you are confused. However, dealing with
your confusion is not within the charter of the CCAMP WG.

Yakov.