IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] Term "PSC" indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

"Cecil Byles" <Cecil.Byles@interoute.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Cecil.Byles@interoute.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A7B3A6A41; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Djf-ZWh2hofV; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.interoute.com (mail1.interoute.com [89.202.186.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AF43A6925; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukex01.interoute.com ([172.31.149.70]) by mail1.interoute.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.0.6001.18000); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:49:28 +0100
Received: from PREX22.interoute.com ([172.31.149.20]) by ukex01.interoute.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:49:24 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CACB37.491CE006"
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:49:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4B2E9510FA2E7E4EB223A7F2F9EE3A9503A2FE59@PREX22.interoute.com>
In-Reply-To: <8bf39341003240227i7fe1e00en9edbe2269b3953cf@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Term "PSC" indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
Thread-Index: AcrLNG31FjIVEjC5TGK4ZVr9JRR1IAAAAzJw
References: <8bf39341003231036w3ceaac70l18ee403c034da761@mail.gmail.com><8bf39341003240120r554b72j3f6b924475a11d3c@mail.gmail.com><A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76C1078FB66E@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <8bf39341003240227i7fe1e00en9edbe2269b3953cf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cecil Byles <Cecil.Byles@interoute.com>
To: Vivien Sterling <vivien.sterling@gmail.com>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2010 09:49:24.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[4934FE50:01CACB37]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:53:02 -0700
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, CCAMP@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] Term "PSC" indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:49:14 -0000

Hi,
Can I therefore also asked how PSC "Protection State Coordination" in
the MPLS-TP parlance align with ITU-T 808.1 recommendation that "defines
the generic functional models, characteristics and processes associated
with various linear protection schemes for connection-oriented layer
networks; e.g., Optical Transport Networks (OTN), Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH) networks and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networks"
and the sections covering  Terms and Definitions as well as
Abbreviations.  IMO all transport engineers and the general telecom
community understand that 1+1 or 1:1 are either SNCP or APS. Hence why
introduce a new TLA (three letter abbreviation) cover the same function
and feature for MPLS-TP.  I can only agree that this will only cause
confusion.
 
Cecil Byles   


Senior Architect 

Transmission Services 

Interoute Communications Limited
Walbrook Building, 195 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SG, UK

  <http://www.interoute.com/networks/index.html> 
 
direct line: +44 (0)2070259599
fax: +44 (0)2070259864
mobile +44(0)7866447466
email: cecil.byles@interoute.com <mailto:x@interoute.com> 
web: www.interoute.com <http://www.interoute.com/> 

 
 
________________________________

From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Vivien Sterling
Sent: 24 March 2010 09:27
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; CCAMP@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Term "PSC"
indraft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01


Sasha,
 
Right. It causes more confusion when GMPLS is used with MPLS-TP. 
Could you share more information about the relationship between "PSC"
and "APS protocol" ? Are they exactly the same with only the different
naming? If so, I don't see any good of giving "a new fancy name".
Anyway, I might be out of fashion ;-)
 
Cheers,
Vivien


2010/3/24 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>


	Vivien and all,

	AFAIK, PSC stands for "Protection State Coordination" in the
MPLS-TP parlance (see MPLS-TP Survivability Framework
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk/> ) - a
new fancy name for what has been known as "APS Protocol" in SONET/SDH.

	 

	As you've noted, it has a completely different meaning in GMPLS.

	 

	Since GMPLS is going to be used with MPLS-TP, double usage of
this acronym looks highly problematic.

	 

	Regards,

	     Sasha

	 

	From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Vivien Sterling
	Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:21 AM
	To: CCAMP@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
	Subject: [mpls] Term "PSC" in
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

	 

	Dear Experts,

	 

	I'm surprised to find the term "PSC" used in this draft. I
suppose the authors are talking about data plane not control plane,
right? Isn't PSC in GMPLS elaborated as "Packet Switch Capable" ? It's
confusing :-(

	
	-- 
	Cheers,
	Vivien




-- 
Cheers,
Vivien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email