RE: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports

[Nik Langrind <nik@equipecom.com>]

Carmine,

Yes, auto-configure is an ill-chosen term. Let me rephrase:

As I understand it, the reason is to allow two systems to exchange
identifiers of their mutual TE links and the component datalinks of those TE
links.

Nik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carmine Daloia [mailto:daloia@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: Nik Langrind
> Cc: 'Zhi-Wei Lin'; Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>