The MPLS WG Archive

["Krishna Bala" <kbala@tellium.com>]

Kireeti,
1. I disagree with your comment about the "open" architecture. 
Again, the intent of this model was to create an architectural/topological
framework which would allow the carriage of multiple services in 
a multivendor optical network. 
2. Yes, the term "overlay" is not preceived positively by network
operators (most of them at least)
3. Model X or Model Y ... what does it matter? Here I am in complete
agreement with you. Yes, our challange is create a framework in which
we can support any evolutionary path imaginable for IP over optics
or "anything else" over optics. I think this is a very achievable 
goal. 


Krishna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 7:06 AM
> To: gja@lucent.com; kbala@tellium.com
> Cc: ip-optical@lists.research.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ip-optical-framework-00.txt
> 
> 
> > The OIF's use is hardly compelling. Curtis makes a good
> > observation that the word "open" isn't particularly descriptive
> > in this context.
> 
> I would go further: "open" is a misnomer.  As Jonathan pointed out,
> the "open" model looks closed from another point of view.  Note that
> the terms "peer", "overlay" and "integrated" all describe topological
> relationships between network elements, but "open" instead describes
> services offered.  Non sequitur.
> 
> > Are you *sure* you aren't really talking about
> > a form of overlay model (as clarified)? The word "overlay" (with
> > or without "signaled" as Curtis suggested) seems to be more
> > descriptive (naturally, IMHO).
> 
> IMHO, here's what is going on: the term "overlay" may appear to some to
> have bad connotations; the term "open" has good connotations.  So,
> while it is nice to have descriptive names, let's call this model X
> (and, if desired, call the peer model Y) to lose the connotational
> baggage, and get on with the real task of defining the models by
> property and context of usefulness.
> 
> Krishna, you make the comment:
> 
> > It is unclear at this time which of these models will prevail.
> 
> I don't know that any one model will "prevail".  Furthermore, by
> designing a routing and signaling architecture that encompasses all
> models, it won't matter which prevails, and will also allow for a
> smoother transition from one to another.  I would say our real
> mission here is to arrive at such an architecture ....
> 
> Kireeti.
>