RE: ASON reqts

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi John,

I think it's not just an issue of non-RSVP domains, but
also how to interwork legacy systems that are centrally
controlled, and maybe variants in-between.  It's reasonable
to see if extensions or changes are needed in the protocols
to support this, given that carriers are not building
networks from scratch anymore.

BTW, in order to deploy distributed control on large 
networks today you necessarily have to go beyond the
standards in order to provide the set of functions a
carrier needs.  That's just that state of things at this
point in time.

Cheers,

Lyndon


-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:36 PM
To: 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ASON reqts


Lyndon,

I think it is out of scope.  The only requirement is that a group of one or
more nodes running a proprietary control plane (e.g., OSRP) must appear to
be one or more GMPLS nodes, and this is a requirement on the vendor
implementing the proprietary control plane.

Thanks,

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@Ciena.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Ong, Lyndon
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I think one aspect that may not come out clearly in the draft
> is that ASON defines a concept of "control domains" (which is
> included in the terminology section of the draft) and in the
> amendment goes on to say that the structure and protocols used
> in each domain may be different (e.g., centralized control in
> one domain and distributed in another, RSVP in one and non-RSVP
> in another).
> 
> I suggested that this be added to the draft, but we did not
> get agreement on this before we decided to send it out, perhaps
> because it was considered to be out of scope (?).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>