Re: Proposed WG Draft - draft-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>]

Dimitri,

I find your mail somewhat puzzling.

You appear to be saying that GMPLS as per RFC 3945 is set in stone and
nothing should modify/enhance the behaviour as specified in RFC3945 which
implies that when RFC3945 was produced the crystal ball was working
extremely well and all possible future applications of the technology had
been correctly envisaged.  I don't believe that was the case.

> the question triggered by this poll is the following: if GMPLS for
> Ethernet is not inline with the existing stacks what is the value of
> GMPLS re-use ? what's the value to borrow the term GMPLS without its
> substance ? and in practice, the issue is, if it is not GMPLS per RFC
> 3945, what's the value compared to any other native control stack that
> would be developed at IEEE for inst. for these techno's.

If we ignore the peer model (which is unworkable in reality IMO), the value
is obvious - significant reuse of existing code, techniques, knowledge,
skills, etc.

So, we should develop the control plane from scratch because Ethernet
requires a few modifications/enhancements (which I believe are backwards
compatible) to RFC3945 - that IMO is ridiculous.


Ben