Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

[[e-mail]]

hi - 

i looked at the OIF IA document, the below text proposed for liaison 
includes most of the concerns

o) section 4.1 provides a table being an interpretation of OSPF that 
deserves serious IETF review b/f publication 

o) positioning of this IA is confusing both in terms of scope intra- vs. 
inter-carrier (it *seems* applicable to both while using OSPF as 
inter-carrier routing protocol is more than questionable if not totally 
wrong) and target (requirements (which) ? applicability of demo code ? 
experimental extensions ?)

o) section 1.2 is unclear about positioning of 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." meaning basically that OIF has 
decided on its own that the proposed OSPF mechanisms are valid and that 
only encoding could be subject to discussion but afaik OIF is not 
authoritative for OSPF 

thanks,
- dimitri.







"Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[e-mail]>
Sent by: [e-mail]
21/07/2006 16:37
 
        To:     <[e-mail]>
        cc:     "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
        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requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend that the document not 
be published for public information in its current form.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-eval-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