[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Comment on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt



Title: Message
Hi Stephen,
 
Thanks for your comments, we are glad to see the interest our draft is receiving considering the original draft (draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn) submitted multiple times since early 2003 did not;-) Our decision to split the document is proving to have been a good move.
 
We had no intention in this draft to introduce any new terminology, we are using the terminology from the base GMPLS documents and draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy. RFC3471 and lsp-hierarchy (Section 7.1) defines LSP regions and boundaries i.e. control plane boundaries based on the (GMPLS) interface switching type (i.e. PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FCS). We have adopted the ITU terminology of layer when referring to data (transport) plane (also in the GMPLS base documents).
 
We asked at the meeting for comments to provide specific text pointers (can send either privately or via the exploder).
 
I am not sure the meaning of your comment "adopt the layer architecture of ITU"? As a similar comment was made at the meeting "GMPLS switching capabilities are not aligned with ITU layering" and in a follow-up mail by Eve, we repeat our response, this draft is not defining (new) GMPLS switching capabilities (or architecture). The definition of GMPLS switching capabilities is not within the scope of this draft - they are defined in the base GMPLS documents. Any concerns should target the appropriate document (RFC3473, ...).
 
Deborah


From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Shew
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:02 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Comment on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt

I was not able to be at the CCAMP meeting today but do have some comments on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt    
 
It seems that the goals of the draft could be accomplished more simply by adopting the layer architecture as defined in ITU-T Recommendations G.805 and G.809.  By doing this, the specific boundaries between TDM, LSC, etc. don't have to be articulated as they are just layer networks.  Also, the designation of TDM does not include the notions of the layers within that (e.g., DS3, STS-1, VC4, etc.) which are important to transport equipment.  Adopting the layer architecture also enables a client layer to be supported by an inverse multipling layer such as provided by Virtual Concatenation.  Here a layer of finer granularity is use to support a layer of coarser granularity.
 

Stephen Shew         Voice: 613-763-2462  Fax: 613-763-8385
Nortel - Optical Networks  email: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com
P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7