RE: Last Call: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard

["rick king" <ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.ch>]

I have some doubt with the following text about virtual concatenation.
-----------------
The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each
   virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths.
   Within GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over
   the same (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This
   is due to the way that labels are bound to a (component) link.
   Note however, that the routing of components on different paths is
   indeed equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having
   its own route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated
   between the same nodes and their corresponding components can then
   be associated together (i.e. virtually concatenated).
---------------
I wonder what's the difference between "virtual concatenation" and "virtually concatenated"?
Thanks!

rick

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:42 AM
To: IETF-Announce:
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard



The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane Working Group to consider Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching Extensions  for SONET and SDH Control
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-2-24.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt