Re: Summary of LMP implementation/deployment reports

[Carmine Daloia <daloia@lucent.com>]

Nik,

Thanks for the clarification.

So basically LMP is used to verify that the datalink id mappings stored 
in the neighboring nodes match eachother.

This type of capability would make more sense to be part of the protocol 
that provided autodiscovery (i.e., discovered the datalink id mappings). 
After autodiscovery completes and the id mappings are stored, the 
protocol can subsequently verify whether the mappings stored in the 
neighboring nodes match eachother.

In my opinion, it is the ability to autodiscover the id mappings that is 
more useful than just verifying at a later time if the mappings still match.

Since LMP doesn't support autodiscovery, it doesn't seem to be useful 
for LMP to check whether the mappings match or not.  This check can be 
done via the autodiscovery protocol itself.

Carmine


Nik Langrind wrote:

> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     
> > > > >          
> > > >   
> > > >        
> > >
> > >      
> >