Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniele.

That is a good idea to bring back this issue we did not have time to 
discuss in details in Vancouver.

As far as I used to understand:
- UNI stands for User-to-Network, which refers to client-server 
relationship;
- NNI stands for Network-to-Network, which refers to inter-domain 
relationship within a common technology.

I believe the protocols we use on those interfaces is orthogonal to 
their type. E.g. one can do signaling only over an E-NNI; building an 
IGP-TE adjacency on the tributary links (UNI) of my WDM network does not 
transmute my UNI into an NNI. Boundaries are not defined with respect to 
control protocols, in CCAMP we put protocols between network nodes, 
including boundaries, we do not change boundary names...
That is also why I prefer to use accurate phrases such as "signaling 
protocol/RSVP-TE" and "IGP", rather than "UNI" or "NNI" acronyms, which 
are sometimes too loose for a protocol specification context like CCAMP.

Cheers,

Julien


On 09/18/2012 09:19, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Fully agree on the second part of your statement. At the time of RFC4208 the UNI allowed the exchange of signaling and routing messages. Now that we're defining also the E-NNI i would prefer to have:
>
> - UNI: signaling only
> - E-NNI: signaling AND routing (i would prefer to call it reachability rather than routing, because it is not a topology info)