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

Re: Opinion on WG drafts for Multi-region/layer networks

hi Jean-Louis,
thanks for the reply,
inline...


LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote:


Hi Richard
See inline, 
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Richard Rabbat 
Envoyé : jeudi 22 décembre 2005 23:28
À : zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc : ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Objet : Re: Opinion on WG drafts for Multi-region/layer networks

yes to both

two questions:
1. since MLN is a special case of MRN, can we collapse this whole topic to MRN? is there a compelling reason for keeping these 2 notation? 

Actually a MLN is not a special case of MRN. Rather a MRN is a special case of MLN. A network comprised of VC4 and VC4-64c capable node is a MLN but not a MRN.
"Layer" refers to a data plane switching layer (e.g. VC4, VC4-64c...). While "region" refers to a switching capablity (PSC, TDM...).
My comment was incorrect. Let me use better math wording. Do all elements of the set MRN belong to the set MLN? 

I suggest that both terms MRN and MLN be clearly defined somewhere.
The term MLN is used to discuss mechanisms that apply equally to layers and regions (VNT...) while the term MRN is used to discuss multi-regions specific mechanisms (e.g. Adaptation capability).
If Igor is right about adaptation (though the example is wrong from Huub's email), then what are other MR specific mechanisms?
2. Section 3 of draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-02.txt is a requirments section and therefore not relevant to this draft but belongs to draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-03.txt. there is no advantage to repeting requirements. 

The objective was to ease the reading, but we can easily remove it if considered as irrelevant.
My suggestion is to drop it in this draft and if there is need to have a summary for clarity, then clarify in the req's doc. 


Thanks for your support and for these comments.

Regards,

JL

thanks,
richard.




thanks,
richard.

Adrian Farrel wrote:


Hi,
We have a charter milestone to start WG work on a
Requirements I-D for
MRN/MLN, and also an Evaluation I-D to examine how the current protocols shape up to the challenge. 

There are two appropriate I-Ds that have been around for a while.

draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-03.txt
draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-02.txt
I propose that we make these WG documents and then give them
a thorough 
review and edit.

Opinions please.

Yes or no will suffice, but reasons are always nice.

Thanks,
Adrian