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

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>]

hi adrian -

the "ring" topic is part of a set that comes out on a periodic yearly 
basis where one sees some interest popping up and then slowing down (it 
used also to be a topic of discussion at the former IPO WG)

however, the first question is "why ring topologies" ? and for which 
kind of switching technology ?

thanks,
- dimitri.

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> .