RE: Stepping back from the ASON Routing Discussion

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Jonathan and Kireeti

A question

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:03 PM
> 
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Jonathan Sadler wrote:
> 
> > > The first sentence is about requirements.
> > > Do we, or do we not, need to support advertising UNI Transport 
> > > Resource address prefixes?
> >
> > There is a requirement to be able to advertise reachability (G.7715 
> > sec7.1.1, G.7715.1 sec 9.4).  G.7715.1 states:
> >   Reachability Information: Reachability information describes
> >   the set of endpoints that are reachable by the associated node.
> >   It may be advertised either as a set of UNI Transport Resource
> >   addresses/address prefixes, or a set of associated
> >   SNPP IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the selection of which must be
> >   consistent within the applicable scope.
> > so technically, there isn't a requirement to advertise UNI 
> Transport 
> > Resource Addresses -- the requirement is to advertise 
> reachability in 
> > terms of SNPP IDs or UNI Transport Resources Addresses.
> 
> Thanks for the references!  This is exactly what I want to 
> see.  What I don't want is an ITU-T Liaison complaining that 
> we are re-doing their requirements :-)

Is it safe to say the primary requirement is not the advertisement itself
but the ability for a user/operator to be able to setup connections/calls
using either UNI Transport Resource addresses or SNPP IDs as the local and
remote endpoints identifiers?  I think this is the primary requirement and
it can be somewhat independent of the advertisement depending on scope.  I
hear the advertisement requirement as well, but I believe that by first
separating these requirements and scoping them we may be able to make some
progress. 

Thanks,
Don