RE: ason-routing-reqts: issue 1 addressing

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi Folks,

Let me kick off some discussion on issue 1 by noting some of the
concerns with using existing methods of advertising reachability
for this purpose:

1) the client system may not be an IP system, but another transport
device with an IP control interface - for example, an ADM (add-drop
multiplexer) acting as a client to an optical network.  Advertising
reachability using normal means might imply that the system can be
used for IP traffic routing.

2) the client system may use a different addressing space than the
internal network addressing space.  Carriers may wish to use a
different addressing space for administrative or policy reasons.

(Note: one model for this is the VPN model, which would allow 
private networks to have their own address spaces.  Another model
is a telephone number-like model, where clients obtain addresses
from a space maintained by the carrier.)

3) the client system may use a non-IP address for compatibility
reasons, for example, a client with an existing management plane
address that the carrier wants to access without having to
add a new address and translation mechanism.  

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:29 AM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: ason-routing-reqts: issue 1 addressing


As noted in the CCAMP minutes and the DT's presentation, the ASON routing DT had three issues regarding GMPLS support for which they lacked agreement and request support of the WG. The issues are identified in Section 7 (Conclusions) of the draft:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-02.txt

I will post three separate email threads to cover each issue. The first issue is on address reachability. The following is the text from the draft:

Some members of the Design Team noted that reachability information (as described in Section 4.5.3) may be advertised as a set of UNI Transport Resource address prefixes (assigned and selected consistently in their applicability scope). These members of the Design Team raised a concern that existing methods of advertising reachability may need to be examined (on a per-protocol basis) to determine if they are also applicable for UNI Transport Resource addresses. They invite CCAMP discussion on this aspect.
Deborah