Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

You are right on the point!

Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com wrote:
> 
> I agree with the separation of GMPLS into the two applications.  There
> does not appear to be any significant move to collapse the management or
> signaling for L3/2 and L1/0 at this time, given the different models
> that apply for them and the infrastructures in our companies that manage
> them.  The plan for addressing the two applications need not be the
> same.
> 
> The L3/2 application is near and dear to the heart of the IETF.  The
> L1/0 application is of interest to those who wish to collapse the
> management into a single layer.  In my opinion, the IETF might also
> address this approach, given the IETF participants are the ones in
> support of this collapsed management or at least common protocol
> solution for what is today two signaling layers.  However, as stated
> before, the collapse approach is not realistic today for a
> multi-service, multi-protocol network.
> 
> On the other hand, the L1/0 application requirements and models have
> been defined and are best understood at the ITU-T.  Ideally, the
> protocol expertise at the IETF would be applied to the ITU-T model and
> requirements to address the L1/0 application, but attempts to do that
> have been met with great resistance in the past.  Perhaps that was a
> result of the fact that GMPLS implementations were not separated out
> into the two different applications.  However, I don't think it is
> realistic to expect the IETF experts to be motivated to understand the
> ITU-T models and requirements, given the application is outside of their
> primary area of interest.  That said, I believe the IETF should reach an
> agreement on how to work with outside groups that develop "major
> extensions" to the protocol.
> 
> Mark Loyd Jones
> Optical Transport and Networking
> Sprint - Wireline Technology Development
> 913-794-2139
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dwfedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:49 AM
> To: gash
> Cc: mpls; ccamp
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> 
> Along the lines of Jerry's comments.
> 
> When we put together GMPLS the first drafts were under specified
> intentionally to capture the essence of GMPLS. We put aside many
> arguments saying lets specify at a high level and fill in the details
> later. The discussions on this thread are in two major veins one
> attempting to fill the details and the other containing and controlling
> the changes. GMPLS needs to be specified more accurately and in my
> opinion it needs to be decomposed to a more layered approach.  I think
> if we applied GMPLS at at some layers (L3/2), (L1/L0) for example,
> independently but self similar it would offer a mechanism to move
> forward where some legacy systems could be specified to be GMPLS
> friendly. For example signaling for Layer 3/2 can be tunneled through
> the a lower layer. We already have some work in this direction.
>  Similarly traffic engineering information for L1/L0 in a TE database
>  would need different  attributes than a the TE database at L3/2. I
> don't think you want to burden a L3/L2 system with these attributes in
> an overlay model. The expertise for these layer is not all contained in
> the IETF. I think we should put a plan forward to make this happen
> within the IETF process. After this was accomplished  I think some
> people are thinking of collapsing layers even more but the logical
> partitioning of layers may help keep the protocols and databases
> simpler.   Right now were are treating GMPLS like a big bowl of jelly
> when it should look more like a layer cake.
> 
> Regards,
> Don