Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G57yW-0005JH-Ma for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:28:28 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G57yT-0001Qd-90 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:28:28 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1G57s5-000PwA-NM for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:21:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.1 Received: from [216.82.250.99] (helo=mail126.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1G57s2-000Pvm-KQ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:21:47 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-126.messagelabs.com!1153775928!10213984!37 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4] Received: (qmail 24744 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2006 21:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO attrh3i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-7.tower-126.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2006 21:21:43 -0000 Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (135.38.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (7.2.052) id 44C39E85000271BB; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:21:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6AF67.28CCE0D0" Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:21:41 -0500 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0C72C0BC@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <0901D1988E815341A0103206A834DA07F1A1B7@mdmxm02.ciena.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Thread-Index: Acas0Ha/aYxFikOBS5m873SVRoVJxgAACLxQAAHPZJAAnZ89IAACGznwAAEdy+A= From: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" To: "Ong, Lyndon" , "Sadler, Jonathan B." , Cc: "Adrian Farrel" Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0cc6ce33a3e165c84359672fc0328059 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6AF67.28CCE0D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable below (noted as db>)... =20 Lyndon, do you think the OIF document and CCAMP's ASON Requirements and Evaluation document are aligned? =20 Thanks, Deborah ________________________________ From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com]=20 Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:33 PM To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Sadler, Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Deborah, =20 Here's what I would say is in and not in the OIF document: =20 -- G.7715, G.7715.1 and the IETF eval and solutions draft all identify a need to support hierarchical routing areas for ASON, I am perplexed as to why this seems to be viewed as a new feature.=20 db> "significant" was not based on "newness" as a feature, it was based on what GMPLS OSPF can support today. =20 -- the document does not specify the domain of usage and leaves this to the carrier. This is no different from G.7715.1 and IETF drafts that do not explicitly state whether they are used for intra- or inter-domain interfaces. db> G.7715.1 is on requirements for link state protocols - it does not define requirements for inter-carrier ENNI routing protocols. And, I differ with your view on IETF documents, IETF documents do specify. And this OIF document also specifies - Figure 1 shows it for use between Carriers. The document may "leave it to the carrier", but OIF claims it can do. I would presuppose an Implementation Agreement would properly scope the solution. Inter-carrier was not included in the ASON-GMPLS routing requirements. Do you think the same solution can be used inter-carrier? =20 -- GMPLS OSPF does not support a 1:N or N:1 relationship between routing controller and transport node, hence extensions are felt to be required - and are proposed in the eval solutions draft. The=20 conclusions are no different. db> GMPLS-ASON did not identify the need to advertise and use in the ERO a transport plane name (OIF/section 4.2) - unless OIF-speak for a TE Router is "transport plane name". The only GMPLS-ASON identified need was if non-unique link IDs (e.g. unnumbered) were supported, an optional TLV was identified which could be used. Note, GMPLS links are not representing "data plane" (RFC4394 provides a good mapping of terminology). And, this was not based on the issue which OIF identified in section 4.2, "identifier namespaces are merged together" in GMPLS. =20 -- the document does not in fact define any standard extensions to the protocols, and points to future work in IETF and ITU to provide these. Therefore I cannot understand where you say "new extensions to OSPF are specified" and "none...align with the CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work". db> None of the identified "issues for extensions" aligns, and none of the DDRP protocol elements listed in the Appendix and used for prototype testing align. If the identified issues do not align, how will IETF provide extensions? ITU future work? =20 I think we're experiencing a significant miscommunication... db> Agree;-) =20 Cheers, =20 Lyndon ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Jonathan, (and Lyndon), =20 Thanks to both of you for responding. =20 "Significant" was referencing: =20 - supports a (new) hierarchical OSPF model - supports inter-domain (inter-carrier) OSPF (not supported by today's OSPF) - identifies namespace issues with GMPLS OSPF which do not exist, and proposes extensions to "fix" - new extensions to OSPF are specified - none of the proposed extensions align with CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work =20 Did you have another adjective to suggest? We were thinking "significant" was rather soft considering the above. Though if it's just ITU-speak differences, why does the OIF liaison state it reflects several years of work including testing? Any insight (alignment mapping to CCAMP's work) which you or Lyndon can provide would be helpful. The divergence is baffling to us. =20 Deborah =20 ________________________________ From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com]=20 Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:34 AM To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Deborah and Adrian, =20 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"? =20 Thanks, =20 Jonathan Sadler =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:38 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI =20 Hi, =20 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 . Having assembled comments from several people and our discussions in Montreal, we have put together the following response. =20 Please comment on the list in the next week. =20 Thanks, Adrian and Deborah =20 =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D Dear Jim, =20 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. =20 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. =20 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.=20 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. =20 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. =20 Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP co-chairs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 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 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6AF67.28CCE0D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
below (noted as db>)...
 
Lyndon, do you think the OIF document and = CCAMP's ASON=20 Requirements and Evaluation document are aligned?
 
Thanks,
Deborah

From: Ong, Lyndon = [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com]=20
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:33 PM
To: Brungard, = Deborah=20 A, ALABS; Sadler, Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian=20 Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF=20 ENNI

Hi Deborah,
 
Here's what I would say is in and not in = the OIF=20 document:
 
-- G.7715, G.7715.1 and the IETF eval and = solutions draft=20 all identify a need to support hierarchical
routing areas for ASON, I am perplexed as = to why this=20 seems to be viewed as a new feature. 
db> = "significant"=20 was not based on "newness" as a feature, it was based on what GMPLS OSPF = can=20 support today.
 
-- the document does not specify the domain of = usage and=20 leaves this to the carrier.  This is no = different
from G.7715.1 and IETF drafts that do not = explicitly state=20 whether they are used for intra- or inter-domain
interfaces.
db> = G.7715.1 is on=20 requirements for link state protocols - it does not define requirements = for=20 inter-carrier ENNI routing protocols. And, I differ with your view on = IETF=20 documents, IETF documents do specify. And this OIF document also=20 specifies - Figure 1 shows it for use between Carriers. The = document=20 may "leave it to the carrier", but OIF claims it can do. I would = presuppose=20 an Implementation Agreement would properly scope the solution.=20 Inter-carrier was not included in the ASON-GMPLS routing = requirements.=20 Do you think the same solution can be used=20 inter-carrier?
 
-- GMPLS OSPF does not support a 1:N or N:1 = relationship=20 between routing controller and transport
node, hence extensions are felt to be required = - and are=20 proposed in the eval solutions draft. The
conclusions are no = different.
db> = GMPLS-ASON did not=20 identify the need to advertise and use in the ERO a transport plane name = (OIF/section 4.2) - unless OIF-speak for a TE Router is "transport plane = name".=20 The only GMPLS-ASON identified need was if non-unique link = IDs (e.g.=20 unnumbered) were supported, an optional TLV was identified which = could be=20 used. Note, GMPLS links are not representing "data plane" (RFC4394 = provides=20 a good mapping of terminology). And, this was not based on the = issue which=20 OIF identified in section 4.2, "identifier namespaces are merged = together" in=20 GMPLS.
 
-- the document does not in fact define any = standard=20 extensions to the protocols, and points to future = work
in IETF and ITU to provide these.  = Therefore I cannot=20 understand where you say "new extensions to
OSPF are specified" and "none...align with the = CCAMP's=20 GMPLS-ASON work". 
db> None of the identified "issues for = extensions"=20 aligns, and none of the DDRP protocol elements listed in the Appendix = and used=20 for prototype testing align. If the identified issues do not align, how = will=20 IETF provide extensions? ITU future work?
 
I=20 think we're experiencing a significant = miscommunication...
db> Agree;-)
 
Cheers,
 
Lyndon

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah = A,=20 ALABS
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM
To: = Sadler,=20 Jonathan B.; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian = Farrel
Subject:=20 RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Jonathan, (and Lyndon),
 
Thanks to both of you for = responding.
 
"Significant" was = referencing:
 
- supports a (new) hierarchical = OSPF=20 model
- supports inter-domain = (inter-carrier) OSPF=20 (not supported by today's OSPF)
- identifies namespace issues with GMPLS OSPF = which do=20 not exist, and proposes extensions to = "fix"
- new extensions to OSPF are=20 specified
- none of the proposed extensions align with = CCAMP's=20 GMPLS-ASON work
 
Did you have another adjective to suggest? = We were=20 thinking "significant" was rather soft considering the above. = Though if=20 it's just ITU-speak differences, why does the OIF liaison state it = reflects=20 several years of work including testing? Any insight (alignment mapping = to=20 CCAMP's work) which you or Lyndon can provide would be helpful. The = divergence is baffling to us.
 
Deborah
 

From: Sadler, Jonathan B.=20 [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com]
Sent: Friday, July 21, = 2006=20 11:34 AM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: = Proposed=20 response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah = and=20 Adrian,

 

I = haven’t seen much=20 discussion of the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the CCAMP list. =  Can you=20 tell me what parts of the document are “significant modifications = to the=20 operation of OSPF”?

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan=20 Sadler

 

From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, = ALABS
Sent: Friday, = July 21,=20 2006 9:38 AM
To:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian=20 Farrel
Subject: = Proposed=20 response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi,

 

We had a = communication=20 from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You can see the original = files on=20 http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm. Having = assembled=20 comments from several people and our discussions in Montreal, we = have put=20 together the following response.

 

Please = comment on the=20 list in the next week.

 

Thanks,

Adrian and=20 Deborah

 

=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D

Dear Jim,

 

We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI = document in=20 response to our request. While we appreciate the document being provided = for=20 information, it is concerning that this document has not been previously = shared=20 with CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains significant=20 modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work over the = last=20 several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for several years = and our=20 Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though a reply was not = requested, we=20 are replying, as we strongly recommend that the document not be = published for=20 public information in its current form.

 

Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not = aligned with=20 RFC 4258 (Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching = (GMPLS)=20 Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the=20 to-be-published: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpl= s-ason-routing-eval-03.txt.=20 Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both these IETF = documents=20 (and the same participants are contributors and the Editor for the OIF=20 document), the non-alignment is perplexing. Considering the IETF = document is=20 ready for publication, we suggest in the interests of time, that you = align your=20 document with the IETF document. If any questions on the interpretation = of the=20 IETF’s work, we recommend that you either utilize the CCAMP mail = exploder or=20 send a communication.

 

Specific comments = include:

1.      = What is the=20 intent of this document? Will it be published as an Implementation = Agreement=20 (IA)?
The title indicates it will be an Implementation Agreement on = GMPLS=20 OSPF extensions, but the main body of the document is a list of issues = with=20 GMPLS OSPF. Further, your communication to us stated the document was=20 requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the ENNI. These three views seem = to be=20 inconsistent.

2.     =20 The list of changes from the previous version (listed = under=20 the Table of Contents) includes “removed=20 “intra-carrier” limitation” and the = inclusion of Figure 1 showing the=20 OSPF ENNI for use between vendor domains and between carrier domains. = GMPLS=20 OSPF-TE already supports inter-vendor operations.
The IETF’s = GMPLS ASON=20 routing focus has been on the use of a link-state based protocol to = support a=20 hierarchical routing architecture (G.7715.1) within a carrier’s = domain.=20 Requirements for using a link state protocol as an inter-domain protocol = between=20 carriers are significantly different. We strongly disagree if you intend = to=20 publish this document as an inter-carrier OSPF ENNI Implementation = Agreement=20 claiming alignment with IETF RFCs without review (or agreement) by any = of the=20 IETF Working Groups.

3.      = Section=20 4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table identifying issues with = GMPLS=20 identifier namespaces are not correct. GMPLS identifier namespaces do = meet ASON=20 requirements for namespace separation of the transport plane and control = plane=20 (Section 5.2 and 5.3/Evaluation). Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and = GMPLS OSPF?=20 As you also identified in your liaison that the key area needing review = was the=20 support of independence of functional component to physical location, = this=20 appears to be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend = reviewing=20 RFC3945 (GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key architecture = difference=20 between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the transport plane and = control=20 plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and RFC4258, provide a mapping to = ITU=20 terminology which may be helpful reading.

 

We request an additional round of = communication of this=20 document to the IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to = produce=20 convergence between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the = best=20 interests of the industry.

 

Best regards,

Adrian Farrel and Deborah=20 Brungard,

CCAMP = co-chairs

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
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
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6AF67.28CCE0D0--