IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Tue, 20 December 2011 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C45921F85D1 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:40:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.486
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.963, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2vOBcCkZSIZ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4193B21F8560 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTvEAtxwhTlPAyo0UMVTPpbMUHTqDwAc6@postini.com; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:40:24 PST
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:37:48 -0800
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:37:46 -0800
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
Thread-Index: Acy/VRw26CKZNKROSdqIRytktOIacwACVxkA
Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B518072@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4EDE3E19.6010303@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18AB@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EF0A18F.4080000@orange.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517AFD@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819BA8E25@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517B62@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2B010A0998FB37@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net> <4EF0B788.7020700@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517BE2@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0C99B.4020505@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517E4F@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0EE83.3060601@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EF0EE83.3060601@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:40:25 -0000

Lou,

I don't see any inconsistency between the two statements.  Nobody uses PSC 1-4 so we don't have to touch it and the SDH/SONET model, which we are re-using, is already consistent with base GMPLS - what is advertised for an interface is a single switching type, the types of client signals it supports, and its available bandwidth. 

How does the existence of this draft, which will have no new information, help the chairs gauge rough consensus on this issue in the WG, especially since rough consensus seems to already exist?  (I.e., the editors, authors, and contributors of the OTN routing draft would seem to represent a substantial portion of the WG.) 

Thanks,

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:22 PM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: Sadler, Jonathan B.; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82
> (Issue 1/2)
> 
> 
> On 12/20/2011 2:02 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> >> > In an earlier message I asked if you were interested in putting a
> draft
> >> > together to document your proposed change to the base GMPLS specs.
> > [
> > [JD]  There are no changes to the base GMPLS specs.  We are not
> changing the base definition of PSC 1-4 and what we are defining is
> completely consistent with SDH/SONET.
> >
> 
> John,
> 	In an earlier message you said:
> 
> On 11/30/2011 5:23 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> > Yes, I think that's fair.
> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:51 PM
> >> > To: John E Drake
> >> > Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
> >> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue
> 1/2)
> >> >
> >> > So you're basically arguing that SC shouldn't be used to indicate
> >> > different levels of hierarchy, i.e., usage (b) in my earlier
> message,
> >> > and that the definition of PSC-1 -> n was flawed.  Right?
> >> >
> >> > Which then reduces the meaning of SC to simply and indicator of
> label
> >> > type and ISCD format indicator.
> >> >
> >> > Is this your position?
> >> >
> 
> Deprecating PSC1-4 and making SC Type just an indicator of label and
> ISCD format will be covered in the draft. The draft wouldn't say
> anything specifically about OTN.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email