RE: Optical Link Interface

["Martin Dubuc" <[e-mail]>]

I support your proposal.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Fredette [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Optical Link Interface


Last month, the "Optical Link Interface (OLI) Requirements" document
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt
was discussed on the ccamp mailing list and achieved "rough consensus"
according to our working group co-chairs.  Given this, we'd like to make
some progress on the protocol specification.  I'd like to generate some
discussion on this mailing list before the IETF meeting in London
because
meaningful technical discussion cannot occur in the time allocated
during
the meeting.

There have been two proposals in the IETF to satisfy the OLI
requirements:

1. [LMP-WDM]:
"Link Management Protocol (LMP) for DWDM Optical Line Systems"
http://www.photonex.com/other/draft-fredette-lmp-wdm-02.txt
(note, this updated document was submitted Friday, so it should show up
on the official website soon).

and

2. [NTIP]:
"Network Transport Interface Protocol (NTIP) for Photonic Cross
Connects"
(PXC)
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sahay-ccamp-ntip-00.txt

LMP-WDM proposes extensions to LMP to satisfy the OLI requirements,
while
NTIP proposes a new protocol.  We believe that the LMP approach is best
because:

1. [LMP-WDM] satisfies the OLI Requirements.

2. The extensions to LMP are quite natural and fit within the spirit of
the
LMP protocol.

3. LMP is a reasonably mature IETF protocol specification:
     - It has been in the works for well over a year.
     - It is an official working group document.

4. It is better to have one protocol, than two for a given function
(remember CR-LDP vs. RSVP-TE, and OSPF vs. IS-IS)

5. Using the same protocol simplifies both implementation and management
on
devices, such as optical cross-connects and routers, that may need to
use
both simultaneously.

While there is no doubt in my mind that NTIP could be made to satisfy
the
OLI requirements, It is my strong opinion that LMP should be the
solution
chosen by the CCAMP working group due to the reasons outlined above.

Comments please!

Regards,
Andre