Re: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports

[Carmine Daloia <daloia@lucent.com>]

Nik,

What is meant by auto-configure?

Thanks
Carmine

Nik Langrind wrote:

> Hi Zhi,
>
> I don't think that gaps in SONET/SDH fault management are the reason for
> implementing LMP on SONET/SDH systems. As I understand it, the reason is to
> allow two systems to auto-configure the component datalinks of their mutual
> TE link.
>
> Nik
>
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:55 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports
> >
> >
> > Hi Bert,
> >
> > This is really illuminating. We've been discussing LMP and 
> > scope of LMP, 
> > and from what I gather (maybe I've misinterpreted or 
> > misunderstood what 
> > people say) was that LMP was supposed to be targetting pre-OTN 
> > equipment, not SONET/SDH equipment since SONET/SDH already 
> > has quite a 
> > set of OAM capabilities that were much better (or at very least 
> > comparable) to LMP (and they've been around more many many years)...
> >
> > So I guess I like to ask people who's doing LMP for SONET/SDH 
> > what are 
> > the gaps they see in existing SONET/SDH fault management (as 
> > defined in 
> > G.783) that LMP is supposed to fill?
> >
> > Thanks for any additional insights.
> >
> > Zhi
> >
> >
> > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >
> >    
> > > Here is the summary of the reports I have received.
> > >
> > > The questions to be answered were:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > > > Type: vendor/carrier
> > > > Company: (to weed out duplicates)
> > > > Interest level in LMP:
> > > > 	For vendors:  opposed/yawn/interested/implementing/released
> > > > 	For carriers: useless/yawn/useful/testing/deploying/deployed
> > > >   used with technology: ethernet/sonet/sdh/atm/fr/xx
> > > >   
> > > >        
> > > Type:                Equipment   TestEquip or   Carrier    ISP
> > >                    Vendor      SourceVendor
> > >
> > > Responses:              10            2            2        1
> > >
> > > Interest level:
> > > Released               2            2
> > > Implementing           6
> > > yawn                   1                                  1
> > > testing                                          2
> > > (very)usefull                                    1
> > >
> > > Technologies (not split by type)
> > > SONET - SONET/SDH      10
> > > Ethernet GigE           5
> > > ATM                     2
> > > MPLS                    1
> > > PXC                     1
> > > (D)WDM                  2
> > > Fiber                   1
> > > Transparent             1
> > > Sonet DCC               1
> > > POS                     1
> > > OTN                     1
> > > Lambda                  1
> > > Port Switching          1
> > >
> > > The sourceVendor claimed to have 10 customers, 5 were named.
> > > One implementation was O-UNI version of LMP, so does not do
> > > all the things described in current LMP draft.
> > >
> > > All in all quite a set if "implementations underway".
> > >
> > > Would have been good to see some more responses from Carriers or ISPs
> > > Feel free to send your continued responses and I will try to keep
> > > the list up to date.
> > >
> > > Bert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> >    
>