RE: ASON reqts

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Eve,

Let me try again.  We are talking about the support of ASON in GMPLS
networks, and
we are trying to identify the ASON requirements on GMPLS signalling
(RSVP-TE).  By
definition, the E-NNI/I-NNI in a GMPLS network will be RSVP-TE (with IP
addressing).
If the signalling protocol within a domain is also RSVP-TE then the only
thing a
domain boundary node will do is modify the RSVP signalling messages subject
to local
policy.

If the signalling protocol within a domain is not RSVP-TE, then a domain
boundary
node for such a domain will have to build an interworking function between
its
signalling protocol and RSVP-TE.  This is not within the scope of this work.

Thanks,

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Varma, Eve L (Eve) [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:27 AM
> To: John Drake; 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I strongly disagree.  The concept of control domains is one of the 
> key elements of G.8080 Am. 1, and support for such is part of the
> requirements.  This makes no statement re proprietary protocols.
> 
> Eve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:36 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>