[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


hi diego

Diego Caviglia wrote:

Hi Dimitri,
            of course you're right this is not the first in we discuss
MS-SPRing in CCAMP, anyway given that we are discussing the new charter of
the WG this could be a good moment to decide if interworking between
MS-SPRing and GMPLS is something that we need to cover.

I'll try to answer to your questions.

"why ring topologies"

Because there is a plenty of ring topology in the transport world.

i know but i will clarify the question because the question is to be put in perspective "why (and where) ring topologies are suitable" ?

and for which kind of switching technology ?

I was thinking about SDH.

and what does prevent a WG like CCAMP to restrict applicability to circuit ? reason for providing an answer to initial question

Regards

Diego





dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com> on 17/08/2005 13.05.26

Please respond to dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Please respond to
       dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

To:    Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
cc:    ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>

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

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











.












.