The MPLS WG Archive

[Vishal.Sharma@tellabs.com]

Keereti,

I believe what Frank is talking about is not merely the separation
of the control channel(s) from the data channels, but rather a more
general notion of non-associated out-of-band signaling.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kireeti@juniper.net [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 5:30 PM
> To: fhujber@hotmail.com; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: Draft Minutes From Pittsburgh
> 
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> > My perspective is naive, but as I understand it, the 
> current proposals
> > require a control link to "overlay" an optical link 
> exactly, and for the
> > control path(s) to be associated with groups of optical 
> links according to
> > their characteristics (i.e. bandwidth - OC-48 vs OC-192).
> 
> > Some of us in the optical world, growing from the telephony 
> (SONET/SDH)
> > world do NOT assume that this overlay occurs. We prefer to offer the
> > provider (in my case, my customer) to have management 
> networks that are not
> > the same as the transport networks. This is because in-band 
> signaling is not
> > yet available (though OIF is working on it) and because 
> providers may not
> > want to dedicate a wavelength to relatively low-speed 
> management traffic.
> 
> We have the notion of separate control channels and data paths in many
> drafts.  See draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-00.txt for a brief description.
> 
> Kireeti.
>