Re: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon

[Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]>]

Access nodes (OLT is only one type of implementation) are specified in BBF TR178, they are not something different from network equipments in classical networks (both MPLS and routing are already included in the architecture of TR178).
Many service providers and vendors have taken part in its development, as I am aware they have shown great interest in the interoperability for those access nodes.

Thanks,
Yuanlong


From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:11 PM
To: Jiangyuanlong; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon

Yuanlong

I think the critical point in the thread was the express need for mult-vendor deployments, something that we are all used to in classical networks.

It would be useful to know how often multi-vendor PON is in practice deployed.

Stewart

On 11/03/2015 02:17, Jiangyuanlong wrote:
Hi Stewart,

The motive and situation is similar to ICCP, maybe the following mailing list can provide some reasons from SP’s viewpoint when that I-D was polled:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10339.html

Actually, trunk protection (or Type B protection) for PON has been deployed by service providers in quite a few countries. There are also quite a few service providers interested in providing ICCP like synchronization for PON, this can be confirmed by our coauthors on the SP side.

Best regards,
Yuanlong


From: Pals [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:30 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon


The authors of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon/
have asked us to start a poll for WG adoption. However before we do this
I think that we as a WG need discuss the right way forward for this draft.

In looking at the history of the draft I discover that there has been almost
no technical discussion on the list.

If I look back at the minutes I find:

@ IETF 90

YJS: how much is deployed with the 2:n splitters?
Ed: Bright House would probably do it. The splitter would be in house as
it solves other issues.  PON is growing, but not a great deal deployed
in NA cable.
Yuanlong: used for small cell backhaul. Can protect a bunch of small
cells.
YJS: so far interest in, but not deployed.  2:N splitter needs to resynch.
Why do we need if phy not there.
Andy: please provide comments to the list.
Matthew: readers? 4, only one commenter on the list

and @ IETF 91

Edwin presented the slides
No comments.
The call for WG adoption will be carried to the email list.
The Chairs noted interest in the meetings and on the list.

In the last remark we may have been mistaken given that  all I
can find are eight emails up to this point excluding automatic notifications
and emails from the authors asking the chairs to take an action.

In looking at the draft, the only IANA actions are in the ICC RG
parameter registry which has Expert Review or FCFS codepoint
ranges, thus there is no need for a standards track RFC or indeed
any RFC from this point of view.

In looking at the subject matter itself, I wonder whether this
is a technology where it is expected there will be multi-vendor
deployment within a PON domain requiring multi-vendor
interworking of this feature.

The IESG have recently been pushing back on the publication of
drafts that have limited support, and thus we need to be in
a position to justify moving forward with this draft on whatever
stream we decide is best.

Given the above, I would like to understand the views of the
WG on which stream is most appropriate for this work:

PALS WG - Standards Track

PALS WG - Informational

AD sponsored

Independent Stream

What are the views of the PALS WG on how we should move forward
and why?

- Stewart




--

For corporate legal information go to:



http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html