RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

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,

Jonathan Sadler

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:38 AM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

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 Montreal, we have put together the following response.

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 Even though a reply was not requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend that the document not be published for public information in its current form.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)?
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 be inconsistent.

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.
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.

Best regards,

Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard,

CCAMP co-chairs