[CCAMP] Proposed communication to OIF on Routing
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 18:56 UTC
Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F020C3A67AF for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:56:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ivj51aQ99AOR for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE6B3A63EB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: db3546@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1264013780!18388235!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
Received: (qmail 23849 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2010 18:56:21 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-14.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 Jan 2010 18:56:21 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KIuEGq027738 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:56:15 -0500
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.19]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KIu9V4027669 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:56:09 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:56:14 -0500
Message-ID: <D6CB948F7AFD6F4881D4B4F80C8509AA0562E5D0@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Proposed communication to OIF on Routing
Thread-Index: AcqaAj05ZOrW23JrTxCHgD+5XYqz/g==
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Proposed communication to OIF on Routing
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:56:27 -0000
CCAMP, We need to send a communication to OIF related to their two previous communications to us on routing. Let us know if any comments on this proposal. Deborah and Lou ------------------------ Proposed Communication------------------ Subject: IETF CCAMP Response to OIF on Routing Dear Lyndon, In your October 22nd communication , you requested consideration of two routing related drafts for CCAMP related to OIF testing. On ASON Routing implementation experience "draft-ong-gmpls-ason-routing-exper-00.txt": This document was presented at November's meeting. While it is re-affirming to hear that your development work and interoperability testing confirmed the routing functionality defined in [OSPF-ASON], your use of different sub-TLVs for the testing does not support the transition of [OSPF-ASON] to standards status. Due to the lack of community interest in testing and deploying ASON routing functionality, [OSPF-ASON] was designated as IETF experimental status. If future OIF testing is based on [OSPF-ASON], the discussion on transition of [OSPF-ASON] to standards status could be revisited. On your request for your defined extensions to be given IETF standards status, we remind you of RFC4929: "The definition and publishing of non-standard extensions by other fora, without IETF review, and outside of the IETF publication process, regardless if rationalized as limited to use among fora vendors, or limited to a particular application, or rationalized as allowing timely demos, has the unfortunate potential to hinder interoperability and increase complexity of the protocol, sows confusion in the industry, and circumvents the Internet standards process that exists to ensure protocol implementability. As described in [RFC4775], non-standard extensions, including experimental values, are not to be portrayed as industrial standards whether by an individual vendor, an industry forum, or a standards body." Specifically of concern, we note in your document, the definition of alternative functionality for existing functionality. In section 3.2.1, a new ISCD sub-TLV for advertising "compact" description of connection availability is defined which is non-compatible with standard GMPLS. And, in section 4.4, new sub-TLV is defined as an alternative to [OSPF-Node] which was used in [OSPF-ASON]. You state as justification (section 4.4): "This tested format is functionally equivalent to the format defined in [OSPF-ASON] but is independent of the function of advertising local addresses of a router for MPLS TE LSPs as defined in [OSPF-NODE]." Are you concerned on the use of a common set of procedures by MPLS and GMPLS such that you believe the need to develop alternatives to ensure independence in the advertising? It would be of benefit to the GMPLS community if you would communicate these concerns so they could be addressed properly before developing your own extensions. We recommend that future OIF testing and related drafts be based on [OSPF-ASON]. This would facilitate the alignment of OIF work with CCAMP produced RFCs. On additional functions for ASON routing "draft-theillaud-gmpls-ason-routing-add-fcts-01.txt": The document was introduced at November's meeting and a discussion thread was initiated on CCAMP's exploder on one of the requested functionalities: link associated local connection type. The example provided in Section 3.1 on the need to distinguish high-order and lower-order VC-3s was discussed and it was concluded the functionality is already supported: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg10716.html You may want to review RFC4202 where this is described: "A way to handle the case where an interface supports multiple branches of the SDH multiplexing hierarchy, multiple Interface Switching Capability Descriptors would be advertised, one per branch. For example, if an interface supports VC-11 and VC-12 (which are not part of same branch of SDH multiplexing tree), then it could advertise two descriptors, one for each one." Section 3 of RFC4202 additionally provides multiple examples which may be helpful. The other proposed functionality, on layer-scoped link attributes, has not been discussed and we welcome the authors of the draft to initiate discussion on the CCAMP list. In your July 23rd communication, you indicated the need to support NSAP format in the advertisement of node local prefixes. We welcome your members to submit a draft detailing the requested functionality. We also direct you to a related discussion that took place in the context of the L1VPN Working Group on November 9, 2005 as reported in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/64/l1vpn.html. Specifically: Several questions were discussed: - Is there a requirement to support NSAPs? The mechanisms for embedding NSAP in IPv6 (RFC 1888) is now marked as historic. We could bring this back alive simply by republishing, if we need the function. Question is whether we actually need the function. - A poll of room showed slight interest in supporting NSAPs, and no opposition. Since there is very low cost to supporting this it is easy, but we don't usually do things without specific demand. We encourage your members to participate in IETF's CCAMP email exploders and the development of standards to prevent these misunderstandings in the future. Regards, Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs
- [CCAMP] Proposed communication to OIF on Routing BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)