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

[<neil.2.harrison@bt.com>]

Title: Message

Hi Deborah,

 

Just to reassure you, I can confirm we fully understand what func arch is and why its important (we had a big hand in doing it).  And we also understand what GMPLS and MPLS are, what the 3 networking modes are, and how they are and are not related.  One cannot functionally crunch the modes from 'IP to optics', it will simply not work either technically or commercially.....in fact a large supplier of ours recently admitted (after 3 years of trying to persuade us otherwise) that they now agree with us on this.  Those who think they can 'create topology on the fly' can believe in this stuff if they like.....you will convince me the day I see a routing protocol lay a duct and light some fibre, till then we'll stick with what we know is true.

 

regards, Neil

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
Sent: 12 November 2004 15:23
To: Harrison,N,Neil,IKR2 R; sdshew@nortelnetworks.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comment on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt

Hi Neil,

 

As I said in my previous mail, there seems to be confusion for those not familiar with GMPLS terminology. LSP is control plane. Nothing new here in this draft. I would suggest those concerned should discuss via the ITU-T SG 15 Q12/Q14 lists as the same choices were made for ITU's DCM (G7713.2 and G.7713.3) protocols.

 

Deborah

 

 

---

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of neil.2.harrison@bt.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:41 AM
To: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comment on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt

Folks should take note of this advice.  We are fully in agreement with you on this issue Stephen.

 

BTW - G.805/809 stuff is not something dreamed-up in ITU just for the sake of it.....in fact its really nothing to do with ITU as its simply a formal way of capturing/defining the nature of real networks.

 

regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Shew
Sent: 11 November 2004 20:02
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