[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ITU-T Communications to IETF CCAMP WG [ was RE: WG dcoument status]
Just a quick note re information flows per G.807 - it is correct that for the
UNI reference point, network routing information is not provided; typical info
flows include policy and endpoint information. However, for the E-NNI reference
point expected info flows include reachability/summarization info, and for the
I-NNI ref. point topology and routing information is expected.
> i see many issues, the statement refers to "call" while from the
> ietf terminology, this term is referred to as "session"; as such
> it could be appropriate from our side to review the statement
> made in the "ITU liaison" because the proposed separation plugs
> a "telephony-oriented" model (or telephony-like model) to a data
> /circuit switched oriented network - but not with "64kb" - one
> speak here about connections from 51.84 Mb (more precisely the
> payload of a C3 is 48384 kbps) to 2.5, 10 or even 40 Gbps !
> This separation (adapted for public telephony network) is also
> constructed on an assumption that there is no control plane
> protocol as we have today with GMPLS protocols but that connection
> signalling is performed by the transport plane (using embedded
> signalling) or through management plane. So there is an under-
> lying fundamental question isn't the G.ASON model only a "public
> overlay model" and then we have to ask ourself if the scope of
> GMPLS has to be adapated/restricted to such public networks
> using an overlay control plane inter-connection: imho, clearly no
> but what could be considered is a "GMPLS profile" for G.ASON.
> Moreover this "assumption" resulted to the fact that G.ASON is
> based on a fundamental assumption: no routing information exchange
> between the client and server layer. GMPLS does not have such
> stringent restriction. Consequently, this makes the separation
> call/connection (while mandatory per requirement in the stringent
> G.ASON model) not at all mandatory in the IETF scope since the
> "routing exchanges" fulfill the role played by the call operation:
> the source knows the status and the availability of the set of
> destinations it can reach. Since routing is one of the foundation
> of any data network, i think we should probably also discuss if
> this separation is adapted for other types of GMPLS networks. In
> brief, i don't think we have to restrict the ubiquity of the GMPLS
> protocol suite.
> Hope this clarifies,
> - dimitri.
> "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> > Erik et all, the "official communications from the ITU" are
> > listed under the Liaison Statements on the IETF Web Page.
> > The page is at: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/liaison.html
> > If you see trouble/issues with any of those, pls let WG chairs and
> > ADs know, so we can take action.
> > Bert
> Papadimitriou Dimitri
> E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
> Website: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
> Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1
> B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
> Phone: Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361