Optical Link Interface
Andre Fredette <fredette@photonex.com> Tue, 24 July 2001 02:00 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:06:42 -0700
From: Andre Fredette <fredette@photonex.com>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010723141353.054510b0@mailbox>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:00:46 -0400
Subject: Optical Link Interface
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Dawkins, Spencer
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Jonathan Lang
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Mannie, Eric
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Martin Dubuc
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- Re: Optical Link Interface Adrian Farrel
- Re: Optical Link Interface Matt Squire
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bala Rajagopalan
- Re: Optical Link Interface Loa Andersson
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Martin Dubuc
- RE: Optical Link Interface Martin Dubuc
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- Re: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: Optical Link Interface Dimitri Papadimitriou
- RE: Optical Link Interface Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bala Rajagopalan
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vijay Gill
- Re: Optical Link Interface Sudheer Dharanikota
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vijay Gill
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Hamid Ould-Brahim
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Jonathan Lang
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Jonathan Lang
- RE: Optical Link Interface John Drake
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Fong Liaw
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Osama Aboul-Magd
- RE: Optical Link Interface Fong Liaw
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Ewart Tempest
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Dawkins, Spencer
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Vasant Sahay
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Bilel Jamoussi
- RE: Optical Link Interface Andre Fredette
- RE: Optical Link Interface Jonathan Lang
- RE: Optical Link Interface Jonathan Lang