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

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Hi Gert, I think some clarifications are in order here to make the BT
position (ie not just the NH position) clear.  Please see below.  regards,
Neil

Gert Grammel wrote 11 March 2003 15:47 to Monica Lazer:

<snipped>
> Look at the hottest issue under discussion: We are talking a 
> lot about UNI
> features like call/connection separation. Neither Mark nor 
> Neil see the UNI
> becoming service relevant at any time soon - so why is it 
> under discussion right
> now? Is this your priority 1 issue in ITU-T? Is Mark or Neil 
> in a minority
> position in ITU-T? Referring to the Yokohama Meeting this was 
> basically
> Kireeti's request: Please explain what you need and for what purpose.

NH=> A UNI at L1/0 is *not* something we see as important anytime soon.  We
also see no need for coupling with L2/3 (either commercially or
technically).  Thus we want to be able to choose best-of-breed functionality
for L1/0.  We *do* want call/connection separation however, and note this is
independent of the UNI...here is an extract from a colleague of mine on the
ITU lists which sort-of explains why:
"Anyone care to disagree with the notion of a call handle for SPCs in the
ITU-T as a means of bundling under one service instance a customer record
that handles
multiple connections e.g. Virtual Concatenation, with or without LCAS as a
valid application?
Anyone care to disagree that we might want to retrieve information on an SPC
using a single identifier (the call) that shows all connections associated
with that call and the performance of each connection and/or start end of
individual connections?
Anyone care to diagree that the call/connection model cannot be used for
restoration of SPCs?
As for those that want to do UNI on you go...but its not on BT priority
list."
> 
<snipped to end>