CCAMPs....some questions

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Folks,

At IETF49 Fred (Baker) asked for any comments on the proposed new CCAMPs
work area within the IETF to be posted to this mailing list.  I have 2
questions/observations at this stage:

1	During the Monday 11 December 2000 session which Fred chaired on
CCAMP, I asked the following question:
Since the Optical Transport Network (OTN) will have clients other than IP
(eg SDH, ATM, FR) will IETF ensure that the GMPLS work takes the requirement
to support multiple client layers into account?

Fred answered that IETF was only responsible for IP protocols and an IP
client layer.  This is fair enough given IETF history and its modus operandi
to date.  However, since many operators will require the support of multiple
client layer technologies (as also borne out from OIF/ITU work on
requirements), and thus requires that GMPLS must embrace an overlay model,
the answer Fred gave implies that IETF will not able to satisfy our
requirements.  If true, then we would not be in favour of the CCAMPs area
(or more generally IETF) developing OTN standards and the work should be
left to standards bodies who are prepared to address the needs of multiple
client layer technologies, eg ITU.

Can you please indicate whether my understanding as expressed above is
correct or not?


2	During the Thursday 14 December 2000 MPLS WG meeting I asked the
following question:
On what basis has the choice of a 32 bit address for the OTN been made?

My concern here is that (it appears) 32 bit IPv4 addresses have been chosen
for the OTN without any analysis of size/structure requirements being
carried out.  Once set, it will almost impossible to change this later.  In
particular, I don't see why an abstract/non-physical resource (like
addressing) should be made 'scarce' at the outset.......if exact size
requirements are not understood at this time, then we should err on the side
of caution (noting that both v6 and ATM clients have 16 and 20 octet,
respectively, address sizes).  Further, it will be required that OTN
addressing is based on a globally agreed format from the start so that
harmonised interconnection between operators will be possible later.

Since I did not get a satisfactory answer to my original question during the
MPLS WG meeting, I would like to ask this question again on this list and
would like an answer that takes into account the concerns expressed above.

Regards, Neil Harrison
BT/Ignite CTO