|
Hi Deborah and Adrian, I haven’t seen much discussion of
the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the CCAMP list. Can you tell me what
parts of the document are “significant modifications to the operation of
OSPF”? Thanks, From:
owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS Hi, 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 Please comment on the list in the next
week. Thanks, Adrian and Deborah = = = = = = = = = = Dear Jim, 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strongly recommend that the document not be published for public information in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 to-be-published: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt.
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)? 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 operations. 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. Best regards, CCAMP co-chairs ============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================ |