Further communication received from OIF

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

We have received a further communication from the OIF, this time on routing.

The text of the communication is shown below, and (as always) the original 
can be found at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm

I think this one will need a response. Suggested text is always welcome.

Adrian

===

Subject: Liaison from OIF to IETF CCAMP WG on Routing

Dear Adrian and Deborah,

OIF would like to thank CCAMP WG for its response to our liaison on 
Multi-layer ASON routing support. We appreciate CCAMP's information 
regarding the use of the ISCD and IACD defined in CCAMP's documents.

We would like to first clarify our use of terminology, as this may be 
leading to some confusion:

- We have used the term multi-level to refer to the use of multiple levels 
of routing areas, hierarchically related, to support multiple administrative 
domains of equipment.

- We have used the term multi-layer to refer to the use of protocols to 
support signaling and routing in layers of switching technology that have a 
client/server relationship and are involved in a single service request, 
e.g., set up of an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) over STS-12c.

We believe that ITU-T Recommendations G.8080, G.7715 and G.7715.1 allow for 
the use of the same routing information for path computation at multiple 
layers, and did not intend to mandate that separate routing protocol 
instances were required for each layer. An example of this would be the use 
of the same link bandwidth availability information for path computation for 
multiple signal types, e.g., STS-1 and STS-3c, keeping in mind that each 
signal
type is a separate transport layer in ITU-T terminology.

We appreciate CCAMP's continued interest in support of ASON routing 
requirements.

Best regards,
Lyndon Ong
OIF Technical Committee Chair