Re: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

On lördag, dec 6, 2003, at 10:03 Asia/Seoul, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> Hi Avri
>
> I had one question on this..
> Technically speaking GRMP seems quite different from GSMP v3
> to me. How could you possibly merge these protocols ?
> I must be missing something here.
>
>
> Thanks
> Hormuzd
>
>

The structure of the two protocols is very similar in that GRMP uses 
similar protocol protocol mechanisms, in fact GRMP imports much of its 
protocol structure from GSMP almost completely.  What is different, 
primary, is the way the information is expressed.  So yes, it is true 
that the messages for setting state for GMPLS objects is different then 
the way GRMP sets state for the LFBs, but this can be accommodated by 
introducing a new message type, or two, for LFBs.  I am also assuming, 
though I have not worked it out yet, that much of the technology 
specific changes that have been made to support various optical 
technologies could also be used.

As I indicated in my first message to Weiming, we would need to do some 
work to see if the merge is really feasible, but on the basis of my 
initial review, I don't think it would be impossible.  My initial 
reasons when the ForCES group first started out for not really being 
interested in having GSMP adapted to support ForCES was that it could 
complicate the simple structure of GSMP.  Now that we are almost 
finished with the rework of GSMP, it would be V3.1, for GMPLS, the 
structure has gotten at once more flexible and more complex and I think 
the merge could be done with a minimum of pain.

The advantage I see in this is that a controller that could use GSMP 
for controlling GMPLS switches might, with the addition of some 
specific GRMP-like modules could also support IP forwarders.  This 
could be a very strong argument for the folks in Asia, and perhaps 
elsewhere, who are already developing and using GSMP for switch 
control.  I guess the point is that now that the GSMP base has been 
generalized to support any of the varieties of GMPLS switch, it is more 
like other general carrier protocols  (except that it is a vertical 
protocol) - mostly what you have to do is define a payload format for 
the content you wish to carry.

But, this is a very high level analysis, and if we were to do this, and 
that would involve ForCES and AD consultation and charter update etc, 
we would need to put together a design team to work out the details for 
real.

a.

_______________________________________________
GSMP mailing list
GSMP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp