RE: I-D ACTION:draft-rbradfor-ccamp-lmp-lol-01.txt

["Bradford, Richard" <rbradfor@cisco.com>]

Jonathan,
  Clarifications inline.
  Thanks for the feedback,
  Rich

At 01:30 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Richard,
>   I read the draft and I like it.  More comments inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> >
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Bradford, Richard
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 7:35 AM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-rbradfor-ccamp-lmp-lol-01.txt 
> > 
> > 
> > I'd like to get feedback from the list on the this draft. In 
> > addition to any problems with the draft itself:
> > a) Does it solve the problem of Link Verification for OXCs?
> I think "the problem" can be solved with existing mechanisms,
> but I like
> your proposal.
>
> > b) If this isn't used, then how will Link Verification be 
> > performed for pure OXCs? Addition of Link Termination modules 
> > such as OC-48 and 10GigE? Build test circuits through the
> switches?
> One way to do it is switch the port to an internal "test"
> port.  Is this
> what you mean by "build test
> circuits"?
There were two other ways that I was
thinking of. The first was switching to an internal test port, which it
seems would have to be terminated in a compatible way with the neighbor
(e,g, OC-48 or 10GigE).
Another way to verify links, but not discover them, would be to build
test circuits between the termination capable devices surrounding a
network of pure optical switches. This wouldn't be something LMP could
do, being a purely local protocol.


> > c) Will carriers deploy
> (i.e. not just lab trials) OXCs 
> > without Link Verification capabilities?
> I highly doubt it, but I'll let them add their input.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan