RE: draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-00.txt

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi don - i would say that the GELS models are of two categories

o) edge to edge (SPC or SPVC model)

o) end-to-end (SC or SVC model) with two sub flavors one where the 
end-node is not Ethernet device and one where the end-node is an Ethernet 
device

i would not make any direct relationship between these models and any VPN 
model simply because the latter refers to the service while GELS is 
specifically linked to the "network connectivity"

much thanks,
- dimitri.
 




"Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>
Sent by: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org
30/06/2006 20:29
 
        To:     "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com>, "Igor Bryskin" 
<ibryskin@movaz.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-00.txt


Hi Lucy 

See comments inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucy Yong [mailto:lucyyong@huawei.com] 
> 
> Don,
> 
> Thank you for writing this draft. It is very informative.
> 
> PBT is simply the data plane of Ethernet (802.1Q and 8021.ah) 
> without a Spanning tree control plane.  As a result, this 
> data plane does not have knowledge of how to forwarding the 
> traffic anymore. The purpose of the draft is to suggest 
> building a new control plane which can build forwarding path 
> for all kinds of service requests as mentioned in document.
> 
Correct

> Building a new control plane for Ethernet network sounds 
> great!! The draft mentions in several places a desire of some 
> level of administrative management in building forwarding 
> path. I would like to ask a basic
> question:
> 
> The network with this new control plane should have the 
> intelligence of routing and traffic engineering to allow the 
> network building forwarding path automatically; or The 
> network should not have that intelligence, forwarding path 
> should be selected by the network management system, network 
> only needs signaling capability to build forwarding path.
> 
> Which model do you pursue for PBT, why?
Either model is appropriate. It comes down to a Network providers
requirements to manage the network and the resources. For many reasons
initial PBT services are static from a source/destination view point.
In some cases we will be starting from a centralized management system.
However, the aspects of GMPLS signaling and control allow a range of
static to dynamic paths even though the endpoints are static. The real
issues related to dynamic control are much like L1VPNs and some of
Igor's comments.  If the service has an identifiable UNI a more dynamic
model may be developed but right now we specifying the provider
operations. 

Regards,
Don 

> 
> Best Regards,
> Lucy Yong
> 

_______________________________________________
gels mailing list
gels@rtg.ietf.org
https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels