[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ASON Routing Requirements to WG doc
Hi
Kireeti, Zafar, et al,
I
think the idea of the DT working co-operatively with the ITU-T, and having some
room for
the DT
(and CCAMP) to iteratively work on the routing requirements is a very good
idea.
In
fact, this ties back to the comment I had first made when Deborah was drafting
the liason
statement on behalf of the WG to send to the ITU-T a few weeks ago.
Lyndon had clarified
then that some items in G.7715.1 were
themselves "work in progress", so I think this is
the perfect time for CCAMP and IETF
to :
(a) study the ASON docs. to determine what
more is needed in the GMPLS suite of
protocols,
(b) seek clarifications from the ITU-T,
and
(c) provide inputs to the
ITU-T.
So, I
would definitely support the idea of having the DT (and, in fact, the
WG as a whole)
spending some time understanding the ASON routing
requirements (instead of merely
adopting them), and, if necessary,
providing inputs to the ITU-T SG15 relative to
G.7715
and
G.7715.1.
-Vishal
Hi Kireeti,
I understand that the
requirements that fall out of the scope of ITU-T recommendations are NOT part
of this document/ work. However, I would like to understand some of the
requirements in the document a little better. Specifically, when the document
mentions that “- support multiple hierarchical levels”, my question how many
level of hierarchy is implied here? Similarly, when a requirement like, “-
support architectural evolution in terms of the number of levels of
hierarchies, aggregation and segmentation of (control ?) domains” is stated, I
would like to again understand the notion of “levels of hierarchies”.
In short, I think there are a lots of TBD’s in the document that DT
will be closing with ITU. I would like to see this as an “interactive”
process, rather than something like "here are the requirements, period". I
think for the sake of prioritization and for providing cross-organization
feedback, it will be very important to have some "room" for DT and ccamp.
Thanks
Regards…
Zafar
=================================================================
Zafar
Ali, Ph. D.
100 South Main St. #200,
Technical Leader,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
Cisco
Systems.
(734)
276-2459.
=================================================================
At
07:42 PM 11/16/2003 -0800, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
Hi Zafar,
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Zafar Ali
wrote:
Thanks for your input!
> Deborah made a very good
point about goals of the design team during the WG
> meeting.
Specifically, she mentioned that the DT will work closely with ITU
>
to understand the requirements.
Excellent.
> I would really
like to make sure that the
> requirements are coming from the service
providers
If you read the design team charter, you'll see that the
requirements
come from the ITU, and that requirements *not* from the ITU
have no
place, especially since the document is entitled "ASON
Routing
Requirements". However, the assumption is that the ITU got
their
input from service providers (or carriers).
> and not
from specific
> implementations. So, I would like to see more activity
from the DT in
> closing on the requirements in the light of the needs
of service providers,
> before agreeing to the
notion.
Requirements from specific implementations and requirements
that the
DT 'closes on ... [from] service providers' are not relevant in
this
particular document. If there is a 'further requirements for
GMPLS
routing', your concerns would be very relevant and
valuable.
However, for this document, given the charter of the design
team, I
would ask you to
reconsider.
Thanks,
Kireeti.
-------