[CCAMP] R: 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