[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Ethernet Control Plane [Was: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.]
Neil,
[SNIP]
> I am also a little concerned that some folks might
> naively assume that a
> control-plane is going to solve all their
> management-plane
> issues......when we move down the network stack to
> the duct there are a
> whole raft of factors that mean the management-plane
> still dominates
> here. If you talk to the right folks in the
> operators who run these
> types of network you will indeed understand what I
> mean by this.
This kind of statements you've been making in about
every email. I am curious to know as we move towards
the duct which *exactly* features, provisioning
functions or operations that are implemented via NMS
could not be conceptually realized via control plane?
Or you are not the "right folk to ask" ? :=)
My view wrt Ethertnet GMPLS is this. I have no doubts
that we can come up with mechanisms to dynamically
provision L2SC LSPs. My problem is the order of
events. It does not seem to me wise to come up with
some control plane framework and solution(s) and after
that think what we need to do in the data plane. It
seems to me wiser to learn how to statically
provision such LSPs, see how useful they are, and only
after that design and develop ways to provision them
dynamically.
In other words, it is wiser to repeat what has been
done with TDM LSPs.
Cheers,
Igor
> A control-plane is useful in the major co-cs
> transport networks (mainly
> for S-PVCs and resilience) but its a minor player
> compared to role of
> the management-plane. The converse of course holds
> in a *traffic*
> carrying cl-ps IP network, esp when this is in the
> context of the
> public Internet.....but of course this isn't the
> case here and IP is
> only being used as the transport protocol in the OOB
> data-plane network
> that carries the control/management-plane protocols.
>
>
> These were points I wanted to make.....hopefully
> I've done a better job
> this time.
>
> regards, Neil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: 23 July 2005 00:08
> To: Harrison,N,Neil,IKM1 R
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Ethernet Control Plane [Was: Re:
> Frameformat in a l2cs
> gmpls rnvironment.]
>
>
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs