RE: Optical Link Interface

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

 
 
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: John Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:47 AM
To: Aboul-Magd, Osama [CAR:1A00:EXCH]; Andre Fredette; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Osama Aboul-Magd [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:15 AM
To: Andre Fredette; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
Andre, 
Obviously I disagree with you in your conclusion. There are number of
factors that should be considered: 
- While LMP has been in STANDARD process for some time, there hasn't been
much deployment, if any, of it. Furthermore the reality of optical networks
today is that same vendor equipment is deployed in a single span.
Implementation of LMP in this case is at best optional. One may choose not
to implement LMP at all. IMHO tying this important interface to the fate of
LMP is not the way to proceed. How long LMP been at the IETF is irrelevant.
[John Drake] 
You're first arguing that if the interface is based upon LMP it's not
needed, and then arguing that if it's not based upon LMP that it's critical 
- NTIP is a new TCP application in the same way as LMP-WDM is a NEW
application for LMP. 
[John Drake] 
Assertion not supported by the facts 
- The issue is not really LMP vs TCP. NTIP and LMP-WDM differ in the model
itself. Your choice to use LMP to run LMP-WDM on top of it forced you to
treat the PXC and LS as peers. NTIP treats PXC-LS relationship as
master-slave. Non peer relationship suits this interface better.
[John Drake] 
Assertion not supported by the facts 
- To link with other standards bodies, as far as I know T1X1, where the
optical knowledge exists, is yet to ar rive to a definition of this
interface. More contributions are solicited to better understand its need
and applications. Given that, I'd like to understand the rationale for the
"rough consensus" reached at CCAMP mailing list. Only 4-5 messages were
posted to the mailing list and mostly from authors of the OLI requirements
draft.
[John Drake] 
I'm sure that there's a point here 
- I don't see harm in having two protocols. The market made its decisions on
the examples you mentioned, and I am sure it will happen again in this case.
[John Drake] 
The market has settled on RSVP-TE, so there's clearly an existence proof
that that the market prefers a single solution 
                        [Osama] totally a different situation. Please let me
know how much LMP installed base is out there today? However you seem to
agree with me that we can trust the market to make the decision.
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:   Andre Fredette [ mailto:[e-mail]
<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
<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
<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
<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