Re: LCAS and GMPLS

[Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

Hi, Mr. Dueser and all

 Thank you for your comment.

 As you pointed out, the GFP/LCAS/VCAT functionality is temination capability.
 But, it can easily migrate with non-GFP/LCAS/VCAT TDM network,

 The one of ID's requirements includes the extension for the routing protocol
in order to advertise such termination capability in each node.
 I believe this routing extension helps smooth migration amongst GFP/LCAS/VCAT
capable and non capable networks.

 In the -00.txt version, the ID suggests the extension to
 Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) as a temporal suggestion.
 Because, I understand that the meaning of interface switching capability 
descriptor
 includes both transit capability and termination capability of LSPs.

 However, the explicit addition of termination capability to the ISCD may 
be one of choice,
considering the more generic node architeture as discussed in Dimitri's 
MRN-extensions draft.

 I hope the discussion in Paris meeting also for above issue .

Best Regards,
Wataru

Hi,

> some comments re I-D draft-imajuku-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lagr-req-00:
>
> - LCAS was not intended for grouping of VC-X-yvs, but for synchronization 
> of the VC-X which is added or dropped. And it's bi-directional.
> - Only the terminating nodes need to have the full GFP+LCAS+VCAT functionality.
> - You need to be careful when using the verbs may, shoul and must - are 
> they conform to IETF convention?
>
> I believe in general this is an important I-D also wrt to the ITU-T 
> liaison and for implementation! I believe we can also discuss details 
> during the IETF next week.
>
> Michael Dueser

---------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku
Senior Research Engineer
@NTT Network Innovation Labs.
TEL +81-46-859-4315
FAX +81-46-859-5541