RE: ASON reqts

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@Ciena.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:54 PM
> To: John Drake; Ong, Lyndon; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> 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.

JD:  You can always put a GMPLS front end on a centralized NMS
system without changing GMPLS in any way

> 
> 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.

JD:  But the smart vendor does it in such a way that it is
interoperable

> 
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>