MS-SPring [Was: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter]

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

Hi Diego,

I can well believe that this is something that should/could be of interest
to CCAMP.

It would be premature, however, to put explicit milestones on our charter
without first seeing some work on the subject and support from the
community.

At the very least we would need to scope the problem and understand
whether there is any work to be done. If anyone wants to write a draft on
this so that we can all understand the problem space, I am sure it would
be welcomed.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter


> Hi Adrian and all,
>                   I've a question about GMPLS interworking with inherent
> protection scheme.
>
> With inherent protection scheme I mean e.g. MS-SPRing in transport
network.
>
> MS-SPring is widely deployed and IMHO interworking between that
protection
> scheme and GMPLS should be foreseen.
> Unfortunately there are some constraints to be satisfied (timeslot
> interchange and squelching table) when an LSP is created on a MS-SPRing.
>
> And now the question is this kind of interworking something that should
be
> covered in CCAMP (I know that there are some Study Point in ITU-T to
cover
> this issues)?
>
> IMHO I think the answer is yes but I like to know the feeling of the
other
> guys here.
>
> Regards
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>
>
>
>