[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Proposed CCAMP recharter
Hi Adrian
It's OK you disagree. :-) I myself would have used
the term connection oriented a while back. However I have observed that others
have a different interpretation and connection oriented Ethernet is confusing to
that crowd. I do believe this a difference between service and network as you
point out but traditional Ethernet has a tighter coupling between network and
service and the distinction is more subtle. Ethernet packets are not forwarded
in a hop by hop paradigm, they follow a VLAN or source based tree always.
So rather than put confusing text I prefer what Adrian has
proposed.
Regards,
Don
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.