RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah, Lyndon, et al,

Some additional comments:

- The hierarchical model discussed in the draft IA liaised may be supported without any modifications to OSPF. As discussed in earlier emails, it can be implemented solely through the import/export of information described in Appendix I of G.7715.

- The draft IA also recognizes namespace issues exist between Router ID and the IP Address that messages are sent to (ITU calls this the RC PC SCN address). This issue is also discussed in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing.

Given that:

- CCAMP has a milestone to publish an ASON routing solution by Nov 2006,

- CCAMP didn’t have at the time this was liaised (doesn’t have today?) a working group document, and

- the draft IA has been successfully implemented by more than a dozen vendors and interop-tested many times,

I would expect that we should be looking at this as experience/text that could be leveraged... “Running code…” and all that…

Regards,

Jonathan Sadler

From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:33 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Sadler, Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah,

Here's what I would say is in and not in the OIF document:

-- G.7715, G.7715.1 and the IETF eval and solutions draft all identify a need to support hierarchical

routing areas for ASON, I am perplexed as to why this seems to be viewed as a new feature.

-- the document does not specify the domain of usage and leaves this to the carrier. This is no different

from G.7715.1 and IETF drafts that do not explicitly state whether they are used for intra- or inter-domain

interfaces.

-- GMPLS OSPF does not support a 1:N or N:1 relationship between routing controller and transport

node, hence extensions are felt to be required - and are proposed in the eval solutions draft. The

conclusions are no different.

-- the document does not in fact define any standard extensions to the protocols, and points to future work

in IETF and ITU to provide these. Therefore I cannot understand where you say "new extensions to

OSPF are specified" and "none...align with the CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work".

I think we're experiencing a significant miscommunication...

Cheers,

Lyndon

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Jonathan, (and Lyndon),

Thanks to both of you for responding.

"Significant" was referencing:

- supports a (new) hierarchical OSPF model

- supports inter-domain (inter-carrier) OSPF (not supported by today's OSPF)

- identifies namespace issues with GMPLS OSPF which do not exist, and proposes extensions to "fix"

- new extensions to OSPF are specified

- none of the proposed extensions align with CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work

Did you have another adjective to suggest? We were thinking "significant" was rather soft considering the above. Though if it's just ITU-speak differences, why does the OIF liaison state it reflects several years of work including testing? Any insight (alignment mapping to CCAMP's work) which you or Lyndon can provide would be helpful. The divergence is baffling to us.

Deborah

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: 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

============================================================

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

============================================================