Re: Ethernet Control Plane [Was: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.]

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Neil,

 

I think John beat me off the blocks here, but...

> > GMPLS assumes an IP control plane.
>
> An IP control-plane?  There is actually no such animal.  Just what

> the heck does that REALLY mean in GMPLS say?

 

Let me explain.

Perhaps I should have said "IP-based control plane".

I mean a control plane which:

- uses IP as its network protocol

- uses IP addresses to identify control plane resources

- uses IP addresses to identify data plane resources within

  the control plane

- uses protocols developed for use in the Internet.

 

> I am not questioning IP as a cl-ps networking protocol *carrying*

> a signalling protocol (RSVP-TE, or dare I mention PNNI, or any

> signalling protocol yet to be invented) or a routing protocol

> (OSPF or ISO or whatever)

 

I am glad to hear it.

 

> or even management protocols

 

Fine, but not in the remit of CCAMP.

 

> but an 'IP Control Plane' per se means absolutely nothing to me....

 

Well, I think it should. I think the list of attributes that I have given above define a control plane based on IP.

 

It is undoubtable that attempts have been made to use control planes based on other protocols. Some have been highly successful. Some have been less fortunate.

 

> ...nor should it to anyone else. 

 

I think folks who were around at the beginning of CCAMP and who were part of the debate with the IESG will be very familiar with where the IETF draws the line here.

 

 

> I think some folks might need a reality check here....and also

> on the self-assumed importance of a control-plane. Hint: It ain't

> that important.....the management-plane (which may be using IP!)

> however is.

 

I am not sure how to interpret this.

It may be that you think that control plane is bad per se, but you have said elsewhere that you think it has value - but much less than the management plane.

It may be that you believe that CCAMP is willfully neglecting the management plane. This would, in fact, be true. It is not in CCAMP's remit to look at the management plane. Other SDOs are working to establish common standards for management of network devices across multiple vendors - we can wish them luck.

Clearly some people (vendors and providers) see sufficient value in a control plane to invest time and energy.

> The (hype) party is over for the OTN start-ups.  IP per se does NOT

> define a *control-plane*...IP is cl-ps networking techology period

> ....and its jolly important, but PLEASE don't try and feed me any of

> this 'IP control plane' nonsense.

 

Tush.

 

> Adrian....you are far smarter than this IMO and should know better.

 

Thanks for the endorsement. May I quote you?

 

Adrian