RE: spc connections

["Lazer, Monica A, ALABS" <mlazer@att.com>]

All,
I would like to bring in an operations perspective.
The request coming from the management plane, in TMN architecture, will
start as an A-Z provisioning request from the NMS to an EMS (the EMS of
the NEs including the ingress node), which in turn passes the request to
the ingress NE. The A and Z points in NMS are known by their AID, which
is a naming scheme based on physical location. If both ingress and
egress are not within the same domain, the EMS of the ingress NE may not
have the ability to translate the Z point AID to an IP address. 

So would anyone take a stab at going through some inter-domain examples
for this situation?

Thank you,

Monica 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:24 PM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: Ong, Lyndon; 'John Drake'; 'Kireeti Kompella'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: spc connections

So far, I see the following flaws in the proposed text:

1) No provision has been made to handle endpoint identifiers
   that are not internal network addresses.

2) The text does not address inter domain cases; those in which
   the ingress and egress endpoints are in different domains which
   do not publish their internal addresses to each other.

3) Kireeti's proposed text unnecessarily overrides a processing
   rule in rfc3473.

4) Lou's text still refers to creation of a new LabelSet object.

5) The procedures for handling the case in which a core network
   does not (by policy) accept route information from the ingress
   edge but must accept endpoint identification in an ERO must be
   elaborated, both for the case of an endpoint in that core network
   and the case of an endpoint in another domain that does not
   publish internal addressing.

Regards,
Ben

Yakov Rekhter wrote:

>Lyndon,
>
> 
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
>>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:06 PM
>>To: Ong, Lyndon; 'Kireeti Kompella'
>>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>Subject: RE: spc connections
>>   
>>
>>>I understand that you have many aspects to weigh, and 7713.2 is
>>>only one of them.  However, the SPC Label procedure is one where
>>>there have been no technical issues, and it has been implemented
>>>and tested.  Other people on the list have concluded that there
>>>is a reasonable case for separating this from the ERO, and it is
>>>not in fact supported by the current procedures in 3473.
>>>     
>>>
>>JD:  Do you think that if you continue saying this that it will
somehow
>>become true?
>>
>>LYO: Yes, I believe that discussing issues on the mailing list may
actually
>>lead to some better understanding and common agreement :o) 
>>   
>>
>
>It certainly lead to better understanding - Lou's proposed text is
>the proof of this. Ditto for Kireeti's proposed text.
>
>And now, since we do have the text, unless the text has *technical*
>flaws I would suggest to close the discussion.
>
>Yakov.
>
> 
>



-----------------------------------------
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================