[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Thanks Gert....I have tried to answer you below. regards, Neil
Gert Grammel wrote 06 March 2003 19:57
> 1. I never understood why you were so emotional on overlay
> models as compared
> to peer but at the same time advocate to use PNNI (Peer
> Network to Network
> Interface) as an alternative.
NH=> The L1/0 networks have multiple clients....so there is no peering with
any of them in the control-plane sense. For external NNIs to a different
operator within the *same* L1 network one would invariably use static
routings. This is irrespective of the actual choice of signalling protocol.
> 2. The addressing issue you've raised is related to UNI
> which was so far
> (until recently) not part of the CCAMP work. So I don't
> see here that you
> were forced to use IPv4 Addresses.
NH=> It would make more sense to introduce V6 here IMO....the point on V4 is
not to start with a limited address space if there is no reason to.
> 3. About RSVP vs. PNNI I am not religious, why not using
> SS7? In any case I
> don't think that the IETF is the right place to discuss
> on PNNI. Honestly I
> don't know which one is 'better' but I don't believe
> that it is always the
> best protocol that will win at the end. If you have one
> why do you need yet
> another one (and in IETF we had already two ;-)?
NH=> There is more operational experience of pnni and in the opinion of our
signalling experts its a better choice than RSVP.
> 4. I don't see your point on running a routing protocol on
> L1/0 why no just
> using RSVP-TE signaling and omit OSPF?
NH=> You could do this I guess.
> 5. About the access to centralized databases and management
> system I believe a
> solution could be found once the specific aplication and
> requrements are clear. I don't see GMPLS excluding this at all.
NH=> True. However, hope you understand why we see the NMS as being *the*
> As an observation I'd like to say that all your arguments are
> equally valid
> applicable to any Layer technology and not specific to L1/0.
NH=> They don't apply to a cnls mode. But I agree many of the aspects could
apply to a co pkt-sw mode.
<snipped to end>