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

Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter



Hi, Adrian

 Thanks.
 I'd like to do so.

Best Regards
Wataru

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Do you think it may be premature to apply 803.2ad techniques before we
have done any work to control Ethernet networks with GMPLS?

You are right that IEEE link aggregation is conceptually very close to
bundling.

I suggest that you need to separate TDM and Ethernet concepts in your I-D.
Take the TDM issues to Diego, Richard, Greg et alia for inclusion in the
VCAT/LCAS work. Take your LAGR issues to Dimitri and Loa for inclusion in
the "GMPLS control of Ethernet switching" work that they are doing.

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wataru Imajuku" <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter


> Hi, Adrian > > Thank you for giving your time interim your hard work. > > >With regard to your section 5, I note that you consider the VCAT group > >analogous with a link bundle. I don't think this is correct because the > >members of a link bundle must be selected and used individually. A payload > >data stream cannot be distributed across multiple component links of the > >bundle... > > An LSP with a bandwidth requirement b and > > setup priority p fits in a bundled link if at least one component > > link has maximum LSP bandwidth >= b at priority p. > >However, the whole point of a VCAT group is to produce a single entity > >(pipe) with maximum LSP bandwidth greater than the capacity of any > >individual component. A VCAT group, therefore, is not a bundle. > > > >Following on from this, I think that the remainder of your section 5.1 > >will have some value, but needs to be corrected to properly reflect the > >meaning of a VCAT group. > > > >In general, I think your section 5 should generalize from the specific > >case of the FA to include any TE link that is based on a VCAT group. > > > >Section 5.2 seems to confuse "FA" with "FA LSP". > > Regarding to VCAT, I agree to your comment. > But, this draft also covers LAGR (link aggregation) which has some limitations > to transmit data-flow exceeding the bandwidth of each comopnent LSP. > > This is one of reason why the description wirtten in Section 5 exists, although > some terminologies are not proper as you noted. >

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