[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
i looked at the OIF IA document, the below text proposed for liaison
includes most of the concerns
o) section 4.1 provides a table being an interpretation of OSPF that
deserves serious IETF review b/f publication
o) positioning of this IA is confusing both in terms of scope intra- vs.
inter-carrier (it *seems* applicable to both while using OSPF as
inter-carrier routing protocol is more than questionable if not totally
wrong) and target (requirements (which) ? applicability of demo code ?
experimental extensions ?)
o) section 1.2 is unclear about positioning of the proposed extensions (in
Appendix) "These extensions use codepoints in the range reserved by IANA
for private and experimental use, and are not agreed standard codepoints
at this time. Future developments may result in change to the codepoints
and/or formats of these extensions." meaning basically that OIF has
decided on its own that the proposed OSPF mechanisms are valid and that
only encoding could be subject to discussion but afaik OIF is not
authoritative for OSPF
"Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
cc: "Adrian Farrel" <email@example.com>
Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
We had a communication from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You can
see the original files on http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm. Having
assembled comments from several people and our discussions in Montreal, we
have put together the following response.
Please comment on the list in the next week.
Adrian and Deborah
= = = = = = = = = =
We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI document in response to our
request. While we appreciate the document being provided for information,
it is concerning that this document has not been previously shared with
CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains significant
modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work over the last
several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for several years and
our Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though a reply was not
requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend that the document not
be published for public information in its current form.
Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not aligned with RFC 4258
(Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the
. Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both these IETF
documents (and the same participants are contributors and the Editor for
the OIF document), the non-alignment is perplexing. Considering the IETF
document is ready for publication, we suggest in the interests of time,
that you align your document with the IETF document. If any questions on
the interpretation of the IETF’s work, we recommend that you either
utilize the CCAMP mail exploder or send a communication.
Specific comments include:
1. What is the intent of this document? Will it be published as an
Implementation Agreement (IA)?
The title indicates it will be an Implementation Agreement on GMPLS OSPF
extensions, but the main body of the document is a list of issues with
GMPLS OSPF. Further, your communication to us stated the document was
requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the ENNI. These three views seem to
2. The list of changes from the previous version (listed under the
Table of Contents) includes “removed “intra-carrier” limitation” and the
inclusion of Figure 1 showing the OSPF ENNI for use between vendor domains
and between carrier domains. GMPLS OSPF-TE already supports inter-vendor
The IETF’s GMPLS ASON routing focus has been on the use of a link-state
based protocol to support a hierarchical routing architecture (G.7715.1)
within a carrier’s domain. Requirements for using a link state protocol as
an inter-domain protocol between carriers are significantly different. We
strongly disagree if you intend to publish this document as an
inter-carrier OSPF ENNI Implementation Agreement claiming alignment with
IETF RFCs without review (or agreement) by any of the IETF Working Groups.
3. Section 4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table identifying
issues with GMPLS identifier namespaces are not correct. GMPLS identifier
namespaces do meet ASON requirements for namespace separation of the
transport plane and control plane (Section 5.2 and 5.3/Evaluation).
Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and GMPLS OSPF? As you also identified in
your liaison that the key area needing review was the support of
independence of functional component to physical location, this appears to
be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend reviewing RFC3945
(GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key architecture difference
between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the transport plane and
control plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and RFC4258, provide a
mapping to ITU terminology which may be helpful reading.
We request an additional round of communication of this document to the
IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to produce convergence
between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the best interests
of the industry.
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard,