[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why Call/Connection Separatation
It is always interesting to see how a discussion on a
document that describes initial ideas on change control
diverts into a discussion on other topics, in this case
the toipic of "Why Call/Connection Separation".
But people never change the subject line.
Oh well... if you want to continue this discussion, then PLEASE
use a proper subject line from now on.
Also if you decide to switch topics again, that you also change
the subject line.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Grammel [mailto:Gert.Grammel@alcatel.de]
> Sent: woensdag 12 maart 2003 11:08
> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: mlazer@att.com; Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com; gash@att.com; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>
>
> Neil,
>
> I think you haven't got my point about call/connection
> separation. Please have
> also a look to my respone to Eve. There can be a discussion about
> call/connection separation once there is a kind of shared
> view on 'why it is
> needed'. In
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-req
> uirements-05.txt
> the only 'motivating sentence I could find was:
>
> To support many enhanced optical services, such as
> scheduled bandwidth
> on demand, diverse circuit provisioning and bundled
> connections, a
> call model based on the separation of call control and connection
> control is essential.
>
> You gave some practical examples on where you see the need
> for that. Why not
> putting it into a document and share it with everybody?
>
> I also want to thank you to share with us your choice to go for a L0/1
> functionality. This is a very clear statement.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gert
>
> neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
>
> > 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>
>
> --
> Alcatel Optical Network Division Gert Grammel
> Network Strategy phone: +49 711 821 47368
> Lorenzstrasse 10 fax: +49 711 821 43169
> D-70435 Stuttgart mailto:Gert.Grammel@alcatel.de
>
>
>