AW: Last Call: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensio ns for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard

[Heiles Juergen <juergen.heiles@siemens.com>]

The signals that are part of the virtual concatenation are virtually concatenated.

Regards

Juergen


> -----Ursprščngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2003 17:49
> An: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> Betreff: FW: Last Call: Generalized Multiprotocol Label 
> Switching Extensio ns for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> IESG received this comment. I guess the answer is: no difference
> right?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I have some doubt with the following text about virtual concatenation.
> -----------------
> The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each
>    virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths.
>    Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over
>    the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This
>    is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link.
>    Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is
>    indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having
>    its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated
>    between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then
>    be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated).
> ---------------
> I wonder what's the difference between "virtual 
> concatenation" and "virtually concatenated"?
> Thanks!
> 
> rick
>