RE: Proposed CCAMP recharter

[Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>]

Hi Don,

I disagree with you on this. 

It all depends on definition of connection. If one agrees on the following major properties of a p2p/p2mp connection:

a) single source;
b) zero flexibility in forwarding packets along the connection;
c) deterministic resource reservation 

then one can see the difference between, say, Ethernet service (which is an association between source(s) and destination(s)) and Ethernet connection (which is a set of network resources connecting the source to the destination(s)). Ethernet services may be provided by either connection-oriented or connectionless Ethernet networks. Ethernet services, as we know, may be also provided by non-Ethernet (e.g. IP/MPLS) networks).
PBB-TE IMO is all about Ethernet connections rather than Ethernet services.

The bottom line: I think it is correct to have the "connection-oriented Ethernet" clause in the CCAMP charter.

Igor

Don Fedyk
 <dwfedyk@nortel.com> wrote:
>  Hi Adrian
>
> Hi Adrian
>
> The description of the term "connection-oriented" does not hold quite
> the same meaning in the IEEE as in the IETF.  In IEEE, my understanding
> is that unicast and multicast services in Ethernet are all considered
> "connections" or "associations" when they are part of the same Service
> VLAN or Service Instance. So many types of Ethernet services can be
> considered "connection-oriented".    
>
> Therefore the term "connection-oriented" might be confusing. (The IETF
> also considers TCP "connection oriented" even though IP is
> connectionless datagram based.) 
>
> I would suggest we use something descriptive like "Explicit Route
> Controlled Paths", or "Automating Configured Ethernet Paths".  
>
> Just a suggestion,
> Don   
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>  owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Hi Julien,
>
> > I agree with Dimitri about the use of the term "Ethernet". As we don't
> > control IP but MPLS-TE, we're looking into controlling a "connection-
> > oriented Ethernet" which isn't really Ethernet and not supported by
> > typical "Ethernet switches".
>
> OK. I'll modify the text I just suggested to Dimitri, to say 
> "connection-oriented"
>
> > On the other hand, (echoing Dimitri again)
> > we are also considering Ethernet services over any GMPLS-controlled
> > layer.
>
> Agree. But don't think we need milestones.
>
> > I also agree it is useless to rearrange all short-term milestones
> (unlike 
> > the
> > charter which has a more long-term value).
>
> I tend to agree, but I suspect that the IESG will find it hard to
> approve a 
> re-charter with dates that have been passed.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>

---

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.