RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

[[e-mail]]

lyndon - indeed this is mentioned - the concern here can be formulated as 
follows: section 1.2 of the OIF IA is unclear about positioning and exact 
intention with the proposed extensions (in Appendix) 

"These extensions use codepoints in the range reserved by IANA for private 
and experimental use, and are not agreed standard codepoints at this time. 
Future developments may result in change to the codepoints and/or formats 
of these extensions." 

you wrote: "the statement on codepoints in the appendix was not intended 
as a statement that the prototype codepoints are expected to become 
standard; it is recognized that IETF (and ITU) are the 
standards-generating bodies. This was a general statement allowing for 
changes or extensions in future experimental activities."

the fact that the sentence combines "at this time" and points to potential 
"standard codepoints" means that we have to warn OIF about implication 
i.e. if OIF intents to change their status (toward standard codepoints) 
then the extensions will be de-facto subject to the MPLS/GMPLS change 
process from the IETF perspective

ps: this is also the reason why there is a direct relationship between 
objective of the document (see previous post) and listed extensions -





"Ong, Lyndon" <[e-mail]>
Sent by: [e-mail]
25/07/2006 18:55
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, "Sadler, 
Jonathan B." <[e-mail]>
        cc:     "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>, 
<[e-mail]>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[e-mail]>, 
<[e-mail]>
        Subject:        RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI


Hi Dimitri,

I completely agree with you that there is much unnecessary hubbub
going on.  The document does in fact point to IETF (and ITU) for
standard extensions to the routing protocols.

From the discussion I have the sense that there is some unhappiness with
the
document focusing on requirements that are still in the process of being

addressed within CCAMP, but since it points to the drafts being done
here
if anything it should focus reader's attention on the work here in CCAMP
rather than anywhere else. 

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:18 AM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; Ong, Lyndon
Cc: Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

jonathan & lyndon

o) During Dallas CCAMP meeting, IETF 66, we have had the following
discussion (extracted from the meeting minutes) 

"Kireeti: What would make me happy is not to have extensions defined in
IAs 
         Work has been done in the IETF. Instead, we will have objects
in the specs and IAs 
         Putting the extensions in an informational appendix is still
confusing, especially 
         as vendors have implemented them for demos 
         I would prefer that you just point to IETF so as extensions
evolve in the IETF, you 
         stay coordinated
Jim: We [the OIF] don't think that differently 
     One of our goals is to align and converge. 
     We understand we are using experimental codepoints" 

so, it is rather unclear why there is so much hubub when IETF proposes
to achieve this objective ? if i well understand your opinion is that
IETF should not target this objective ? let's assume this is the case,
it still does not allow OIF to bypass the MPLS-GMPLS change process 

o) concerning the alignment of IETF vs G.7715 and G.7715.1, from the
IETF liaison webpage you will see that a set of exchanges between bodies
has been conducted to ensure such alignment; however, as ITU should be
defining ASON routing requirements your statement "I cannot say that
they are aligned with the requirements of the OIF" is totally unclear to
me. 
Does OIF has its own requirements or are OIF requirements not fully
aligned with ITU G.7715/.1 ? This question should be reflected in the
liaison to OIF - as a CLEAR response from OIF will surely help sorting
the present situation 

o) what is the real "issue" by pointing to the addressing i-d, the
latter just provides recommendation in case of 1:1 corr. between data
and control plane entities; i thought ASON was looking at larger scope -
so what's the point beside trying to mis-use any IETF production to
corroborate the GMPLS OSPF digression of Section 4.1 of the OIF IA ?

o) the tone of the OIF IA is its first sections is totally inappropriate
and misleading - so requires major revision - by reading one got the
impression by reading that a) OIF puts premises of a new protocol
recommendation while also stating it is a demo code reporting for a
single level - this must be seriously revisited b) OIF has apparently
discovered major holes and flaws, while issue is limited to unnumbered
links with overlapping ID space per TE Router ID (as detailed in section
5.7 of the eval doc) - alignment on these aspect(s) is also more than
recommended imho 

o) at the end, the major concern is that it is totally unclear what the
purpose of the OIF IA OSPF extensions are, if the intention of OIF is to
push them outside OIF demo scope (which seems to be the case since the
document passes through OIF ballot process and thus will be openly
available after this phase), then de-facto it is an OIF dutty to ask
IETF for in-depth revision and full alignment before publication 

ps: to achieve a standard you need running code, but not any running
code becomes a standard even informational (hopefully);

-d.





"Sadler, Jonathan B." <[e-mail]> Sent by:
[e-mail]
24/07/2006 22:31
 
        To:     "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[e-mail]>, "Ong, 
Lyndon" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
        cc:     "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
        Subject:        RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI


Hi Deborah, Lyndon, et al,
 
Some additional comments:
 - The hierarchical model discussed in the draft IA liaised may be
supported without any modifications to OSPF.  As discussed in earlier
emails, it can be implemented solely through the import/export of
information described in Appendix I of G.7715.
 - The draft IA also recognizes namespace issues exist between Router ID
and the IP Address that messages are sent to (ITU calls this the RC PC
SCN address).  This issue is also discussed in
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing.
 
Given that:
-          CCAMP has a milestone to publish an ASON routing solution by 
Nov 2006, 
-          CCAMP didn't have at the time this was liaised (doesn't have 
today?) a working group document, and
-          the draft IA has been successfully implemented by more than a

dozen vendors and interop-tested many times, I would expect that we
should be looking at this as experience/text that could be leveraged...
"Running code..." and all that...
 
Regards,
 
Jonathan Sadler
 

From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:33 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Sadler, Jonathan B.; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
 
Hi Deborah,
 
Here's what I would say is in and not in the OIF document:
 
-- G.7715, G.7715.1 and the IETF eval and solutions draft all identify a
need to support hierarchical routing areas for ASON, I am perplexed as
to why this seems to be viewed as a new feature.
 
-- the document does not specify the domain of usage and leaves this to
the carrier.  This is no different from G.7715.1 and IETF drafts that do
not explicitly state whether they are used for intra- or inter-domain
interfaces.
 
-- GMPLS OSPF does not support a 1:N or N:1 relationship between routing
controller and transport node, hence extensions are felt to be required
- and are proposed in the eval solutions draft. The conclusions are no
different.
 
-- the document does not in fact define any standard extensions to the
protocols, and points to future work in IETF and ITU to provide these.
Therefore I cannot understand where you say "new extensions to OSPF are
specified" and "none...align with the CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work". 
 
I think we're experiencing a significant miscommunication...
 
Cheers,
 
Lyndon
 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Jonathan, (and
Lyndon),
 
Thanks to both of you for responding.
 
"Significant" was referencing:
 
- supports a (new) hierarchical OSPF model
- supports inter-domain (inter-carrier) OSPF (not supported by today's
OSPF)
- identifies namespace issues with GMPLS OSPF which do not exist, and
proposes extensions to "fix"
- new extensions to OSPF are specified
- none of the proposed extensions align with CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work
 
Did you have another adjective to suggest? We were thinking
"significant" 
was rather soft considering the above. Though if it's just ITU-speak
differences, why does the OIF liaison state it reflects several years of
work including testing? Any insight (alignment mapping to CCAMP's work)
which you or Lyndon can provide would be helpful. The divergence is
baffling to us.
 
Deborah
 
 

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Deborah and
Adrian,
 
I haven't seen much discussion of the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the
CCAMP list.  Can you tell me what parts of the document are "significant
modifications to the operation of OSPF"?
 
Thanks,
 
Jonathan Sadler
 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
 
Hi,
 
We had a communication from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You
can see the original files on http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm. Having
assembled comments from several people and our discussions in Montreal,
we have put together the following response.
 
Please comment on the list in the next week.
 
Thanks,
Adrian and Deborah
 
= = = = = = = = = =
Dear Jim,
 
We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI document in response to our
request. While we appreciate the document being provided for
information, it is concerning that this document has not been previously
shared with CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains
significant modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work
over the last several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for
several years and our Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though
a reply was not requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend
that the document not be published for public information in its current
form.
 
Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not aligned with RFC 4258
(Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the
to-be-published: 
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ev
al-03.txt
. Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both these IETF
documents (and the same participants are contributors and the Editor for
the OIF document), the non-alignment is perplexing. Considering the IETF
document is ready for publication, we suggest in the interests of time,
that you align your document with the IETF document. If any questions on
the interpretation of the IETF's work, we recommend that you either
utilize the CCAMP mail exploder or send a communication.
 
Specific comments include:
1.      What is the intent of this document? Will it be published as an 
Implementation Agreement (IA)?
The title indicates it will be an Implementation Agreement on GMPLS OSPF
extensions, but the main body of the document is a list of issues with
GMPLS OSPF. Further, your communication to us stated the document was
requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the ENNI. These three views seem
to be inconsistent.
2.      The list of changes from the previous version (listed under the 
Table of Contents) includes "removed "intra-carrier" limitation" and the
inclusion of Figure 1 showing the OSPF ENNI for use between vendor
domains and between carrier domains. GMPLS OSPF-TE already supports
inter-vendor operations. 
The IETF's GMPLS ASON routing focus has been on the use of a link-state
based protocol to support a hierarchical routing architecture (G.7715.1)
within a carrier's domain. Requirements for using a link state protocol
as an inter-domain protocol between carriers are significantly
different. We strongly disagree if you intend to publish this document
as an inter-carrier OSPF ENNI Implementation Agreement claiming
alignment with IETF RFCs without review (or agreement) by any of the
IETF Working Groups.
3.      Section 4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table
identifying 
issues with GMPLS identifier namespaces are not correct. GMPLS
identifier namespaces do meet ASON requirements for namespace separation
of the transport plane and control plane (Section 5.2 and
5.3/Evaluation). 
Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and GMPLS OSPF? As you also identified in
your liaison that the key area needing review was the support of
independence of functional component to physical location, this appears
to be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend reviewing
RFC3945 (GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key architecture
difference between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the transport
plane and control plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and RFC4258,
provide a mapping to ITU terminology which may be helpful reading.
 
We request an additional round of communication of this document to the
IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to produce convergence
between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the best
interests of the industry.
 
Best regards,
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard,
CCAMP co-chairs
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================