Re: [CCAMP] Framework and Information model for G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTN) consideration post-IETF82

You're welcome.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO) [mailto:sergio.belotti@alcatel-
> lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:32 AM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: CCAMP; Lou Berger
> Subject: R: [CCAMP] Framework and Information model for G.709 Optical
> Transport Networks (OTN) consideration post-IETF82
> 
> Thanks John,
> You got perfectly the point.
> 
> Sergio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
> Inviato: martedì 29 novembre 2011 14.24
> A: Lou Berger
> Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP
> Oggetto: RE: [CCAMP] Framework and Information model for G.709 Optical
> Transport Networks (OTN) consideration post-IETF82
> 
> Lou,
> 
> My point was that control plane interoperability with G.709v1 is non-
> trivial and before we start working on it we should know whether anyone
> wants it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:05 AM
> > To: John E Drake
> > Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Framework and Information model for G.709
> Optical
> > Transport Networks (OTN) consideration post-IETF82
> >
> > John,
> > 	I think the gist of my comment (from 2 meetings ago) got lost.
> > The WG
> > needs to ensure that any changes / additions to GMPLS don't break
> > existing GMPLS implementations.  Please see the message I just sent
> to
> > Sergio.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > On 11/28/2011 11:53 AM, John E Drake wrote:
> > > I would suggest that those folks with deployed G.709v1 networks
> write
> > an
> > > I-D detailing their requirements for an interworking function.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> > > Behalf Of *BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
> > > *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2011 12:53 AM
> > > *To:* CCAMP
> > > *Subject:* [CCAMP] Framework and Information model for G.709
> Optical
> > > Transport Networks (OTN) consideration post-IETF82
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi CCAMP,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > as outcome of the Framework and Information model for G.709 Optical
> > > Transport Networks (OTN) presentation, Lou Berger asked co-authors
> to
> > > provide a new section in the framework document dealing with
> backward
> > > compatibility, as summary with respect to what is already
> > present/will
> > > be present in the  encoding documents.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In our opinion, the first thing to do is deciding which are the
> > > scenarios that have to be taken into account.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As hypothesis we would like to consider network element domains
> > > composed either of G.709v1 or G709v3 network elements,
> > >
> > > so without having a mix of network element in the same domains. The
> > > motivation for this is that operators
> > >
> > > would not be happy with the mix because managing control plane
> > versions
> > > implementing very different features
> > >
> > > is not practical from a network operation point of view.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that backward compatibility issues are to be considered
> > > between GMPLS versions. So for G.709v1 NE we mean
> > >
> > > a network element with G.709v1 HW and support of RFC4328 only.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The case of a NE with G709v1 HW supporting our GMPLS drafts does
> not
> > > have backward compatibility issues because it can be considered as
> a
> > > new  node with limitations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Said this the candidate scenarios may be:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1)  Interworking between a G.709v1 domain with a G.709v3 domain
> (path
> > is
> > > terminated by one G.709v1 node and G.709v3  node)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) Interworking in the case of  a G.709v1 domain - a G.709v3 domain
> -
> > > G709v1 domain (G.709v3 domain in the middle of two G.709v1 domains.
> > The
> > > path being terminated on G.709v1 equipment.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We'd like to hear the opinion of the WG whether CCAMP consider
> > > exhaustive the type of scenarios proposed, before proceeding with
> any
> > > modification to the document.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sergio and co-authors
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *SERGIO BELOTTI*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ALCATEL-LUCENT
> > >
> > > Terrestrial System Architect
> > >
> > > Optics Portfolio Evolution
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > via Trento 30 , Vimercate(MI)  Italy
> > >
> > > T: +39 0396863033
> > >
> > > *Sergio.Belotti@alcatel-lucent.com*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp