[CCAMP] OIF draft on ason routing
"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com> Thu, 18 March 2010 16:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Lyong@Ciena.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 B02733A6909 for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.132
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 EKu5L2vhhH0b for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ripley.ciena.com (ripley.ciena.com [63.118.34.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C3F3A6911 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4325
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:48:00 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_4303_01CAC699.3FE775F0"
Message-ID: <0AFD1B67B949784DA087CDA9F0DD4AD901720EA9@mdmxm03.ciena.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: OIF draft on ason routing
thread-index: AcrGusQl3TjJiBdTRLiKE9Pb3II7JA==
From: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Cc: Thomas Walsh <twalsh@juniper.net>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Malis, Andrew G. (Andy)" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>
Subject: [CCAMP] OIF draft on ason 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: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:48:02 -0000
Hi Folks, I wanted to give people a quick introductory email on the OIF-sponsored draft on ason routing (draft-ong -gmpls-ason-routing-exper-01.txt) with some background: 1. The OIF recognizes that the IETF is the owner of standards for GMPLS protocols, including especially OSPF. It is not in OIF's scope to define standards. In fact, OIF is currently on a track to adopt a subset of the OSPF routing extensions defined by IETF CCAMP in the forthcoming Experimental RFC 5787 (aka draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09.txt, as the RFC has not yet been published). 2. That being said, we think there is a great opportunity for synergy here if the IETF would consider adopting the formats defined in the OIF draft as a testing-based update to the work in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09.txt, as that draft suffers from lack of implementation and testing (thus the Experimental status), while the formats defined in the OIF draft have at least 8 implementations and the benefit of about 7 years of Interop testing. We believe this would accelerate the adoption and deployment of standards for ASON routing using OSPF, and also save a good deal of effort and resources on the part of OIF members to re-implement and re-test ASON routing extensions. Also, given the long experience with running code, it would be justified to move this work from Experimental status to Standards Track. 3. As explained in draft-ong -gmpls-ason-routing-exper-01.txt, we think that the format modifications involved are quite small in the case of the Local/Remote TE Router_IDs and the advertisement of local Address Prefixes, basically in the one case the use of 2 vs. 1 combined sub-TLVs and in the other case the use of address length rather than network mask for the prefixing. The issue of the ISCD for SONET/SDH is trickier, as an alternative method is already defined in RFCs 4202 and 4203, however the draft identifies concerns with the amount of overhead required using RFCs 4202/3 and advertising multiple ISCDs for a fairly typical SONET/SDH link of OC192 rate (which requires 5 ISCD sub-TLVs to be advertised) and requests consideration of a supplementary sub-TLV that would avoid needing to advertise multiple ISCDs. 4. It has been suggested that OIF deliberately deviated from the IETF work on ASON routing. This is not the case. Work on formats used in OIF experimentation on ASON routing dates back to 11/2002, prior to IETF CCAMP activities on ASON routing extensions, which were initially submitted in June 2006. 5. One might ask why OIF did not submit input previously on this issue. I accept some of the fault for this, as I believed it was implied to me that OIF input on formats was not especially welcome, and that the fastest way to get standard OSPF extensions defined was to leave the process entirely within IETF. It should be noted that OIF participants contributed to the work on ASON Routing requirements and evaluation in RFCs 4258 and 4652 that preceded the work on OSPF extensions. We would welcome any comments on the draft, now or during its presentation on Tuesday at CCAMP and are hopeful that this will be received as constructive input. Thanks, Lyndon
- [CCAMP] OIF draft on ason routing Ong, Lyndon