The plan is roughly as follows:(a) Survey of current GMPLS WG drafts that have may have mechanisms usable for VCAT/LCAS operation. List mechanisms (generally objects and such added to signaling or routing). Adrian your supplemental website with the up to date listing of CCAMP is either broken or the link from the IETF website is broken :-< Can you fix or send the right link? (b) Analysis of these mechanisms for applicability to base VCAT/LCAS scenarios. (c) Write up additional enabled applications with walk throughs for each mechanism adopted, e.g., make before you break...
However, we've currently been dealing with the note from the last IETF meeting that claimed that this effort was "strictly for the diverse path" case. One of the basic VCAT/LCAS scenarios is dynamic bandwidth adjustment (whether co-routed or not). GMPLS VCAT connection bandwidth modification (even in co-routed) seems different from the MPLS case in the sense we'd need to either add or delete member connections (not just modify connection bandwidth parameters at each node). We're not sure that this important case can be currently handled in the co-routed case without modification. So we've also added this analysis to our list of ToDo's (volunteers for a complete write up on this?)
That said look for activity again after the holidays! Greg -------------------------------------------------- Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, In Vancouver there was clear support in the room that a group wanted to work on this topic. draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01 was submitted in October and provides a fair summary of the problem space in sections 1 and 2. The draft fades out in section 3 "Possible Extensions to GMPLS to support additional VCAT/LCAS scenarios" as it starts to identify the specific requirements to extend GMPLS protocols. I suggest that the authors should: - gather a group of interest parties to work on this - keep in mind that protocol extensions are done in support of implementations (that is, not for completeness, but because someone is building product) - beef up section 3 to list the requirements - write a new section for the solutions I think that we will be able to adopt this work as a WG draft, but we should not do that until we have seen a first stab at the protocol extensions. If the authors could let us know their progress and plans, that would be great. Thanks, Adrian