Re: Optical Link Interface

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

All,

second (or maybe third) in motion. I think Andre's proposal has a
very solid foundation. As I understand it even the people proposing
NTIP,
do so based on the argument that two protocols are better than one.
Somestimes even quoting "(I)SP's" wanting this.

Speaking as an operator I can't find any reason to complicate our
network
with two protocols (even though marginally different) that give me the 
same thing. For the very same reason that we won't deploy CR-LDP, we 
won't deploy a second optical link interface protocol. The only chance
that we will deploy NTIP is that it will be the one and only pick by
CCAMP, and I can't see that happen. 

Let's go for LMP-WDM and let's stop the standardization process for 
alternatives.

/Loa

Martin Dubuc wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          [phone]
Office direct   [phone]
Mobile          [phone]
Email           [e-mail]
WWW             www.utfors.se