RE: ITU-T Communications to IETF CCAMP WG [ was RE: WG dcoument s tatus]

["Osama Aboul-Magd"<[e-mail]>]

Dimitri,

You can also look at GMPLS as a tool kit that is applicable to different
models, ASON being one of them.

Yes, ASON is an overlay model. There is no reason why GMPLS based protocols
for signaling and routing could not be used for ASON control plane
implementation. Your statement regarding "restricting" routing information
between client and server networks only reflects your preference to deploy a
peer model. This is fine, but do not impose artificial requirements that
wouldn't allow the application of GMPLS protocols to other models. The last
time I looked at the IP over optical framework, overlay was one of the
models discussed.

I have been saying in a number of presentations to the IPO WG (in the
context of "draft-ietf-ipo-ason-01.txt") that ASON and GMPLS are
complementary in the sense that GMPLS protocols could be used for ASON
control plane realizations. The latest activities at the ITU just prove
that. 

Regards;

Osama Aboul-Magd
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station "C"
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1Y - 4H7
Tel: [phone]
e.mail: [e-mail]

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	[e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent:	Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:43 AM
To:	Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc:	Mannie, Eric; 'Mak, L (Leen)'; [e-mail]; Kireeti Kompella
Subject:	Re: ITU-T Communications to IETF CCAMP WG [ was RE: WG
dcoument status]

Bert,

i see many issues, the statement refers to "call" while from the 
ietf terminology, this term is referred to as "session"; as such
it could be appropriate from our side to review the statement
made in the "ITU liaison" because the proposed separation plugs 
a "telephony-oriented" model (or telephony-like model) to a data 
/circuit switched oriented network - but not with "64kb" - one 
speak here about connections from 51.84 Mb (more precisely the
payload of a C3 is 48384 kbps) to 2.5, 10 or even 40 Gbps ! 
This separation (adapted for public telephony network) is also 
constructed on an assumption that there is no control plane
protocol as we have today with GMPLS protocols but that connection 
signalling is performed by the transport plane (using embedded 
signalling) or through management plane. So there is an under-
lying fundamental question isn't the G.ASON model only a "public 
overlay model" and then we have to ask ourself if the scope of 
GMPLS has to be adapated/restricted to such public networks 
using an overlay control plane inter-connection: imho, clearly no
but what could be considered is a "GMPLS profile" for G.ASON.

Moreover this "assumption" resulted to the fact that G.ASON is
based on a fundamental assumption: no routing information exchange 
between the client and server layer. GMPLS does not have such 
stringent restriction. Consequently, this makes the separation
call/connection (while mandatory per requirement in the stringent 
G.ASON model) not at all mandatory in the IETF scope since the 
"routing exchanges" fulfill the role played by the call operation: 
the source knows the status and the availability of the set of
destinations it can reach. Since routing is one of the foundation 
of any data network, i think we should probably also discuss if 
this separation is adapted for other types of GMPLS networks. In
brief, i don't think we have to restrict the ubiquity of the GMPLS 
protocol suite.

Hope this clarifies,

regards,
- dimitri.





"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> Erik et all, the "official communications from the ITU" are
> listed under the Liaison Statements on the IETF Web Page.
> The page is at: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/liaison.html
> 
> If you see trouble/issues with any of those, pls let WG chairs and
> ADs know, so we can take action.
> 
> Bert

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri 
E-mail : [e-mail] 
Website: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1 
         B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone:   Work: [phone] - Home: [phone]