RE: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link Verification

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Comments inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Sadler [mailto:jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
> Cc: Stephen Trowbridge; Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com; George
> Newsome; Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; Wijnen, Bert (Bert);
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Kireeti@juniper.net; Ron Bonica (E-mail);
> zinin@psg.com
> Subject: Re: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link
> Verification
> 
> 
> I see the discussion as being broken down as follows:
>  - What should be sent in-band to identify a CP-link
>  - What could be sent out-of-band to identify a CP-link
>    (through trace correlation)
> 
> G.7714.1 deals only with the in-band approach.  lmp-test-sonet-sdh
> deals with both approaches.
> 
> The out-of-band case handled by lmp-test-sonet-sdh is out of scope
> for G.7714.1 -- what two consenting systems, management or otherwise,
> exchange across their DCNs is out of scope for G.7714.1.
> 
> The liaison from T1X1 asked if it is necessary for two totally
> independent message formats to exist for the in-band case as the
> function being performed by both G.7714.1 and the Jx Test Message
> Connetivity Verification approach defined in lmp-test-sonet-sdh is
> the same.


JD:  I don't think that is correct.  The LMP Test procedure is used
to exchange the GMPLS identifiers for a given data link.  Since the
GMPLS identifiers may not be globally unique, it is necessary to
qualify them with a Verify ID, which identifies the particular Test
procedure the identifiers are associated with.  G.7714.1 is used to
exchange the transport level identifiers for a given link. 


> 
> Only the in-band issue needs to be discussed.
> 
> Jonathan Sadler
> 
> PS. I couldn't help but respond to Deborah's attempt to clarify:
> 
> "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" wrote:
>  > db: Note, to clarify, G7714.1 requires all new G7714.1-aware
>  > transport equipment, both terminations and intermediate equipment.
> 
> This is untrue.  The G.7714.1 formats are consistant with the
> capability required in G.707, making hardware changes unnecessary.
> The design of the message format was done with remoting of the
> Discovery Agent in mind -- allowing for non-G.7714.1-aware transport
> equipment to be a part of an overall system that does indeed use
> G.7714.1 formats.


JD:  I saw an e-mail yesterday from Maarten Vissers yesterday sent
to one of the T1X1 mailing lists indicating the exact opposite.  I
have asked him to re-post it here.