Re: LMP fraud

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Greg

> 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.

I have no time/desire to explain to you why I think LMP is useful.
If you think that you don't need to implement LMP, then don't
implement it. The choice is yours. If other folks think that LMP
adds value to their products, then they would implement it.

Yakov.