Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2
Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com> Thu, 17 January 2013 17:11 UTC
Return-Path: <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13BC21F879D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:11:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqhkU46tsKod for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.advaoptical.com (mail.advaoptical.com [91.217.199.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD64921F8792 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MUC-SRV-MAIL10B.advaoptical.com ([172.20.1.60]) by muc-vsrv-fsmail.advaoptical.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0HHBLEk001778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:11:21 +0100
Received: from ATL-SRV-MAIL10.atl.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.39) by MUC-SRV-MAIL10B.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.118.0; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:11:21 +0100
Received: from ATL-SRV-MAIL10.atl.advaoptical.com ([fe80::c4d6:b136:bc16:77ae]) by atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com ([fe80::c4d6:b136:bc16:77ae%17]) with mapi id 14.03.0118.000; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:11:19 -0500
From: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Snigdho Bardalai <SBardalai@infinera.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Overlay model framework v2
Thread-Index: Ac3z/soRExnVDsCQRoefc5lUb0kQPQAOJ5ugAAF4jxAAC1ZqcAAgY/iAAAnZVHD//8bogIAAUn/A//+8joCAAFMukA==
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:11:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191596AC@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806C450@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <6386D6323049044BA592CB99AB04BACB3F947CB8@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A19107008@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <6386D6323049044BA592CB99AB04BACB3F947D83@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806CB06@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191585E8@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806CC86@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915962F@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806CDD9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4806CDD9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.21.1.81]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-17_06:2013-01-17, 2013-01-17, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 17 Jan 2013 17:11:27 -0000
The reason I like term "Virtual Topology" is simply because it is entirely made up of virtual elements: nodes and links. If you agree with me that provider does not disclose any of its real network topology information, I don't see why the terms "Exported Provider Topology" or "Summarized Provider Topology" are better/less confusing. -----Original Message----- From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:04 PM To: Igor Bryskin; Snigdho Bardalai; CCAMP Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 Does this mean: the topology passed from the PE to the CE? (hope this time i correctly used the acronims!!!) The new definition looks good to me if you're referring to the virtual links/nodes only, but doesn't consider real links/nodes any longer. I prefer the old definition and call it as Pavan suggested: Exported Provider Topology" or "Summarized Provider Topology" BR Daniele >-----Original Message----- >From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] >Sent: giovedì 17 gennaio 2013 17.23 >To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Snigdho Bardalai; CCAMP >Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 > >Daniele, > >What I was saying is that the definition: >> 3. Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of >one or more >> virtual or real provider network domain nodes that exist in the >> customer layer network and are interconnected via 0 or more virtual >> links. >Is not correct. It should say IMO: >3. Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of one or more >virtual nodes, supported by one or more provider network domains, which >exist in the customer layer network and are interconnected via 0 or >more virtual links, supported by one or more provider network domains > >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:10 AM >To: Igor Bryskin; Snigdho Bardalai; CCAMP >Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 > >What you say is more than true but orthogonal to my point :-) > >It's only a matter of terminology. We defined: > >> 3. Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of >one or more >> virtual or real provider network domain nodes that exist in the >> customer layer network and are interconnected via 0 or more virtual >> links. > >If we call it "Virtual Topology", the first thing that comes to the >minds is: its only a collection of virtual links and virtual nodes. >Snigdho's proposal was to call it differently so to better identify the >fact that it includes both virtual and real links/nodes, that's it. >The name he proposed, however, is again misleading, because calling it >"provider topology" makes me (and you) thinking of just real >links/nodes, doesn't it? > >I would suggest not to use either of the terms as both are misleading. >Maybe something like "exported topology", "CE-PE tology" or whatever. > >Daniele > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] >>Sent: giovedì 17 gennaio 2013 16.29 >>To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Snigdho Bardalai; CCAMP >>Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 >> >>Daniele, >> >>We want to separate a Virtual Topology advertised to the >clients (which >>is, generally speaking, different for different sets of clients) from >>provider real topology, which must be concealed from the clients. >>I disagree with Snigdho, when he is saying that a PE just has >multiple >>aliases (one from each client name space). There is much more to this. >>The way I see it a PE contributes differently to different Virtual >>Topologies (each time with a different ID, sometimes as a whole, >>sometimes as split into several VNs, sometimes as a part of a >large VN, >>possibly with a separate connectivity matrix. it also, depending on >>Virtual Topology, presents itself as switch of a different layer >>network, and so forth). Therefore, PE in the context of Virtual >>Topology is always a Virtual Node, even when it is mapped 1:1 >onto real >>provider switch. In general, only VN can terminate a VL. >> >>Igor >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] >>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:53 AM >>To: Snigdho Bardalai; Igor Bryskin; CCAMP >>Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 >> >>Igor, Snigdho, >> >>I agree with Snigdho. Why don't we call it provider topology (or >>whatever) if it includes both virtual links/nodes and real >links/nodes? >>I don't think it has anything to deal with naming space. >> >>Further replies in line >> >>I'd like to have feedbacks from you and all on Open Issue 4. >>That's an advertisement models draft issue but it's something that i >>can't really understand yet. >> >>BR >>Daniele >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Snigdho Bardalai [mailto:SBardalai@infinera.com] >>>Sent: giovedì 17 gennaio 2013 5.28 >>>To: Igor Bryskin; Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP >>>Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 >>> >>>Hi Igor, >>> >>>Not sure if the case you are citing qualifies a real node or >>link to be >>>called virtual. The client space name is simply an alias. >>> >>>Regards >>>Snigdho >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:04 PM >>>> To: Snigdho Bardalai; Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP >>>> Subject: RE: Overlay model framework v2 >>>> >>>> Snigdho, >>>> >>>> > 3. Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of one or >>>> > more virtual or real provider network domain nodes that >exist in >>>> > the customer layer network and are interconnected via 0 or more >>>> > virtual links. >>>> >>>> [SCB] Since the topology advertised by the provider network can >>>> contain real or virtual elements, why do we call it "virtual >>>> topology"? Should it simply be called "provider topology"? >And then >>>> specify that it may contain both virtual or real elements. >>>> >>>> Virtual topology includes only virtual nodes. Even when we are >>>> considering real PEs terminating VLs, we must treat the PEs in the >>>> context of Virtual Topology as VNs since they must be named >>from the >>>> client naming space. >>>> >>>> Igor >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] >>>On Behalf >>>> Of Snigdho Bardalai >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:48 PM >>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 >>>> >>>> Hi Daniele, >>>> >>>> A few comments. Please see in-line. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Snigdho >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf >>>> > Of Daniele Ceccarelli >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:33 AM >>>> > To: CCAMP >>>> > Subject: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 >>>> > >>>> > Dear overlayers, >>>> > >>>> > Please find below a new version (v2) of the framework summary >>>> > reflecting the latest discussions. Again i hope i've >captured all >>>> > the comments around, sorry if anything is missing, in case >>>just let >>>> > me know what i missed. >>>> > >>>> > BR >>>> > Daniele >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > + Disclaimer: >>>> > 1. Packet opto integration is often considered but the >>>work can be >>>> > extented to any type of SC. Eg. TDM over LSC. >>>> > >>>> > + Terminology: >>>> > 1. Virtual Link: A virtual link is a potential path between two >>>> > virtual or real network elements in a provider layer >>network that >>>> is >>>> > maintained/controlled in and by the provider domain >>control plane >>>> > (and as such cannot transport any traffic/data and >protected from >>>> > being >>>> > de-provisioned) and which can be instantiated in the data plane >>>> > (and then can carry/transport/forward traffic/data) preserving >>>> > previously advertised attributes such as fate sharing >>information. >>>> > 2. Virtual Node: Virtual node is a collection of zero or more >>>> > provider network domain nodes that are collectively >>>represented to >>>> > the clients as a single node that exists in the customer layer >>>> > network and is capable of terminating of access, >inter-domain and >>>> virtual links. >>>> >>>> [SCB] Agree with Igor's comment - a virtual node can be a >>>combination >>>> of multiple nodes or a part of the single node, but to the >customer >>>> node this is transparent. >> >>Yes, agree. >> >>>> >>>> > 3. Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of one or >>>> > more virtual or real provider network domain nodes that >exist in >>>> > the customer layer network and are interconnected via 0 or more >>>> > virtual links. >>>> >>>> [SCB] Since the topology advertised by the provider network can >>>> contain real or virtual elements, why do we call it "virtual >>>> topology"? Should it simply be called "provider topology"? >And then >>>> specify that it may contain both virtual or real elements. >> >>See above >> >>>> >>>> > 4. Overlay topology: is a superset of virtual >>topologies provided >>>> by >>>> > each of provider network domains, access and inter-domain links. >>>> >>>> [SCB] A more concise definition for the overlay topology is >>>- CE nodes >>>> + Access-links + provider topology as advertised by the provider >>>> network. >> >>We wanted to include also the possiblity of having multiple provider >>domains. >> >>>> >>>> > 5. Access Link: Link between OC and OE. GMPLS runs on >>>that link. It >>>> > can support any of the SCs supported by the GMPLS. >>>> > 6. CE (customer Edge): Something like the CN in RFC4208 >>>teminology >>>> > but (i) receiving virtual topology from the provider >network and >>>> > requesting the set up of one of them or >>>> > (ii) requesting the computation and establishment of a path >>>> > accordingly to given constraints in the provider network and >>>> > receiving the parameters characterizing such path. (ii) == UNI. >>>> > 7. PE (provider Edge): Something like the EN in RFC4208 >>>but able to >>>> > deal with (i) and (ii) above. >>>> > 8. PE-CE interface (former ONI) : Interface allowing for >>>signaling >>>> > and routing messages exchange between customer overlay >>>and provider >>>> > network. Routing information consists on virtual topology >>>> > advertisement. When there is no routing adjacency across the >>>> interface >>>> > it is equivalent to the GMPLS UNI defined in 4208. Signaling >>>> > messages are compliant with RFC4208. Information >related to path >>>> > carachteristics, e.g. TE-metrics, collected SRLG, path >>delay etc, >>>> > either passed from CE to PE via signaling after the LSP >>>> > establishment in the core network or from CE to PE to be used as >>>> > path computation constraints, fall under the definition of >>>> > signaling info and not routing info). >>>> > 9. CE-CE (former O-NNI): Interface on the links between >>different >>>> > provider networks in the overlay model environment. Same >>features >>>> > of the CE-PE apply to this interface. >>>> >>>> [SCB] Is this "PE-PE" instead of "CE-CE"? >> >>Oooops! Definitely. >> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > + Statements >>>> > 1. In the context of overlay model we are aiming to build an >>>> > overlay topology for the customer network domains 2. >>The overlay >>>> > topology >>>> is >>>> > comprised of: >>>> > a) access links (links connecting client NEs to the provider >>>> > network domains). >>>> > They can be PSC or LSC. >>>> > b) inter-domain links (links interconnecting server network >>>> > domains) >>>> > c) virtual topology provided by the provider network domains. >>>> > Virtual Links + Virtual Nodes (TBD) + Connectivity >Matrix (with a >>>> set >>>> > of parameters e.g. SRLG, optical impairments, delay etc for each >>>> > entry) describing connectivity between access links and virtual >>>> links. >>>> > 3. In the context of overlay model we manage hierarchy >>>of overlay >>>> > topologies with overlay/underlay relationships 4. In >>the context >>>> > of overlay model multi-layering and inter-layer >>relationships are >>>> > peripheral at best, it is all about horizontal network >integration >>>> 5. >>>> > The overlay model assumes one CP instance for the >customer network >>>> and >>>> > a separate instance for the provider network and in the CE-PE >>>> > interface case the provider network also surreptitiously >>>> participates >>>> > in the customer network by injecting virtual topology >>information >>>> > into it. >>>> >>>> [SCB] Specific implementations may or may not have a single >>instance >>>> for the provider and the overlay. >> >>Mmm, that's true. It MUST work with two different instances >but no one >>prevents it to work with a single one. >> >>>> >>>> > 6. L1VPN (and LxVPN) in general is a type of service >>>provided over >>>> > the CE-PE interface (it falls under the UNI case as no routing >>>> > adjacency is in place between CE and PE). >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > + Advertisement models (to be detailed in dedicated >>>> > + document/documents) >>>> > The CE-PE interface in the overlay model context foresees >>>two types >>>> > of advertisement models.(names still to be agreed) A. >>>Augmented UNI: >>>> > The GMPLS UNI is defined in RFC4208 and augmented by a >number of >>>> > actived draft (references to various drafts to be added). >>>> > The Augmented UNI is a particular type of CE-PE interface where >>>> > only signaling messages are exchanged between CE and PE. >>Messages >>>> > from CE to PE can include a set of parameters to be used >>>by the PE >>>> > as path computation constraints when computing a path in the >>>> > provider domain network, while messages from PE to CE can >>>include a >>>> > set of >>>> parameters >>>> > qualifying the LSP being established, like for example >>>SRLG, delay, >>>> > loss etc. >>>> > B. ONI: The GMPLS ONI is a CE-PE interface (this could be simply >>>> > called with the general CE-PE interface term?) allowing the >>>> > establishment of signaling and routing adjacency between >>>CE and PE. >>>> > Routing info passed from PE to CE comprise overlay topology >>>> > information including (but not limited to) virtual links, >>>> > connectivity matrices and access links with parameters qualifying >>>> each >>>> > of them in terms of e.g. SRLG, loss, delay etc. Signaling >>>> > information >>>> and procedures are compliant with RFC4208. >>>> > >>>> > + Open issues/questions >>>> > 1. PCE-PCEP - do we need to include considerations about PCE and >>>> PCEP >>>> > into the overlay framework context? >>>> >>>> [SCB] IMO - this should be described in the overlay >>>framework document >>>> to establish the context. >> >>+1 >> >>>> >>>> > 2. BGP-LS needs to be considered 3. Should potentials be >>>> > included? E.g. I2RS? >>>> > 4. Virtual links: wouldn't a different definition of >>>virtual links >>>> > avoid the advertisement of connectivity matrices (this is >>>out of the >>>> > fwk scope but within the advertisement models one)? >>>> > Take this example: >>>> > PE1-----CE1 CE2-----PE2 >>>> > CE1======VL1======CE2 >>>> > CE1======VL2======CE2 >>>> > i.e. There are 2 VL connecting CE1 and CE2 that could be >available >>>> for >>>> > PE1 and PE2 to set up an adjacency in the customer domain. CE1 >>>> > and/or >>>> > CE2 can be blocking nodes so VL1 and/or VL2 are available only >>>> > depending on the connectivity matrices of CE1 and CE2. Hence PEs >>>> > need to be aware of both VL and connectivity matrices. My >>>point is: >>>> > if CE1 advertises to PE1 only the VL that his >connectivity matrix >>>> > allows to be connected to PE1 (e.g. VL1 only) and not all >>of them, >>>> > it should be possible to avoid the connectivity matrices >>>advertisement. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > =================================== >>>> > DANIELE CECCARELLI >>>> > System & Technology - PDU Optical & Metro >>>> > >>>> > Via E.Melen, 77 >>>> > Genova, Italy >>>> > Phone +390106002512 >>>> > Mobile +393346725750 >>>> > daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com >>>> > www.ericsson.com >>>> > >>>> > This Communication is Confidential. We only send and >>receive email >>>> > on the basis of the term set out at >>>> > www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > CCAMP mailing list >>>> > CCAMP@ietf.org >>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>> >> >
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extensions? (… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework v2 Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Additional overlay protocol extension… John E Drake