The MPLS WG Archive

[Mike Truskowski <truskows@cisco.com>]

For what it is worth, there are NO formal agreements 
in the NSIF for IP on the DCC and to my knowledge no
work in the ITU dealing with the DCC.

Mike

> 
> I think there are two aspects to the IP over SONET DCC. One is UNI
> Signaling  for the purpose of CPE-ONE Signaling and possibly NNI Signaling
> and the other is DCN (at least that is the term we used and I believe is
> borrowed from work done in Sonet Interoperability Forum) for EMS/NMS.  The
> latter is something that is discussed quite a bit in SIF and may be in ANSI
> T1X1 as well.
> 
> Incase it might help here are some references.
> 
> 1. Brown, Mike, SIF-AR-9804-055, "Survey of Requirements for IP on the
> non-DCC DCN," April 15, 1998.
> 2. Hunt, Christopher J., SIF-AR-9804-058, "TCP/IP DCN Alternatives," April
> 14, 1998.
> 3. Jamal, Rashid, SIF-AR-9803-054, "IP On DCN - Sprint's Response," April
> 14, 1998.
> 4. Reference architecture proposed at May IP DCN conference call.
> 
> I think, SIF primarily focused on use of DCC bytes (called  as embedded
> operations channel) for SONET network management plane and not for control
> plane.  IP over PPP over HDLC over DCC bytes as pure network transport
> mechanism need not be linked with control plane or management plane. I think
> UNI 1.0 does leave scope for UNI signaling messages to be transported using
> 1. DCC bytes
> 2. SPE
> 3. alternate transport such as UNI over internet reaching the ONE.
> 4. Ethernet if CPE is co-located with ONE such as in a POP
> 
> A general informational document drawing inputs from SIF, UNI 1.0 and from
> other useful dicussions elsewhere might be helpful for IETF community  while
> avoiding re-inventing some of the issues and operational problems expressed
> already and draws from good inputs in the past of lot of people.
> 
> Manohar N Ellanti
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Riad Hartani" <riad@caspiannetworks.com>
> To: "'Alex Zinin'" <azinin@cisco.com>; "Tony Przygienda" <prz@net4u.ch>
> Cc: <tli@procket.com>; <echang@pocketmail.com>;
> <isis-wg@spider.juniper.net>; <skatukam@cisco.com>; <mpls@UU.NET>
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 6:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Question on DCC Architecture
> 
> 
> > On this subject, the OIF UNI 1.0 specification (submitted for last call)
> > describes, among other things, how to use SONET Line and/or Section DCC
> > overhead bytes to transport various IP control plane messages (called IP
> > Control Channel -IPCC-). For discovery of information required by the IP
> > control plane, both DCC or J0 bytes may be used in the actual proposal.
> >
> > For the IP control plane, the proposal requires IP packets to be
> > encapsulated in PPP over HDLC-like framing with bit stuffing format. The
> > spec also describes various aspects related to the selection and
> maintenance
> > of IPCC parameters, as well as other ways of carrying IP control
> information
> > in Sonet/WDM environments.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Riad
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alex Zinin [mailto:azinin@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 9:46 AM
> > > To: Tony Przygienda
> > > Cc: tli@procket.com; echang@pocketmail.com;
> > > isis-wg@spider.juniper.net;
> > > skatukam@cisco.com; mpls@UU.NET
> > > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Question on DCC Architecture
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > > >>  A number of companies working in the SONET area already use or are
> > > >>  planning to use DCC for IP control plane [I put MPLS list back ;),
> > > >>  since this question is related to GMPLS and OTN-related work].
> > > >>
> > > >>  There are two types of IP encapsulation on DCC that I know of:
> > > >>  LAP-D and PPP/HDLC. We use the second one in our SONET products.
> > > >>
> > > >>  I think writing up an IETF document describing this would
> > > make sense.
> > >
> > > > First, this smells much like ISO thing to do so we'd need
> > > an agreement/liason
> > > > first from their side. That is obviously only worth
> > > pursuiting if we have
> > > > authors commiting to provide the cycles first.
> > >
> > > Hmmm... why do you think specification of *IP* encapsulation
> > > over SONET DCC
> > > using "PPP over HDLC-like framing" is something ISO should do?
> > >
> > > > Second, which workgroup ? One of the MPLS offsprings such
> > > as GSMP ;-) ? What about
> > > > a new one, IPSO (IP over SOnet) ? I'm joking but wouldn't
> > > be surprised
> > > > if the joke find takers ;-) ?
> > >
> > > Definitely not me ;)
> > >
> > > I think some kind of individual submission should be ok. I guess
> > > the Internet Area is the one that logically hosts it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Isis-wg mailing list  -  Isis-wg@external.juniper.net
> > > http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list  -  Isis-wg@external.juniper.net
> http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>