RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

["Sadler, Jonathan B." <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deborah and Adrian,

 

I haven't seen much discussion of the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the
CCAMP list.  Can you tell me what parts of the document are "significant
modifications to the operation of OSPF"?

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan Sadler

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi,

 

We had a communication from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You
can see the original files on http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm
<http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm> . Having assembled comments from
several people and our discussions in Montreal, we have put together the
following response.

 

Please comment on the list in the next week.

 

Thanks,

Adrian and Deborah

 

= = = = = = = = = =

Dear Jim,

 

We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI document in response to our
request. While we appreciate the document being provided for
information, it is concerning that this document has not been previously
shared with CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains
significant modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work
over the last several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for
several years and our Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though
a reply was not requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend
that the document not be published for public information in its current
form.

 

Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not aligned with RFC 4258
(Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the
to-be-published:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ev
al-03.txt. Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both
these IETF documents (and the same participants are contributors and the
Editor for the OIF document), the non-alignment is perplexing.
Considering the IETF document is ready for publication, we suggest in
the interests of time, that you align your document with the IETF
document. If any questions on the interpretation of the IETF's work, we
recommend that you either utilize the CCAMP mail exploder or send a
communication.

 

Specific comments include:

1.      What is the intent of this document? Will it be published as an
Implementation Agreement (IA)?
The title indicates it will be an Implementation Agreement on GMPLS OSPF
extensions, but the main body of the document is a list of issues with
GMPLS OSPF. Further, your communication to us stated the document was
requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the ENNI. These three views seem
to be inconsistent.

2.      The list of changes from the previous version (listed under the
Table of Contents) includes "removed "intra-carrier" limitation" and the
inclusion of Figure 1 showing the OSPF ENNI for use between vendor
domains and between carrier domains. GMPLS OSPF-TE already supports
inter-vendor operations. 
The IETF's GMPLS ASON routing focus has been on the use of a link-state
based protocol to support a hierarchical routing architecture (G.7715.1)
within a carrier's domain. Requirements for using a link state protocol
as an inter-domain protocol between carriers are significantly
different. We strongly disagree if you intend to publish this document
as an inter-carrier OSPF ENNI Implementation Agreement claiming
alignment with IETF RFCs without review (or agreement) by any of the
IETF Working Groups.

3.      Section 4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table
identifying issues with GMPLS identifier namespaces are not correct.
GMPLS identifier namespaces do meet ASON requirements for namespace
separation of the transport plane and control plane (Section 5.2 and
5.3/Evaluation). Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and GMPLS OSPF? As you
also identified in your liaison that the key area needing review was the
support of independence of functional component to physical location,
this appears to be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend
reviewing RFC3945 (GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key
architecture difference between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the
transport plane and control plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and
RFC4258, provide a mapping to ITU terminology which may be helpful
reading.

 

We request an additional round of communication of this document to the
IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to produce convergence
between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the best
interests of the industry.

 

Best regards,

Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard,

CCAMP co-chairs

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================