The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Optical link bundling. Was Re: Draft Minutes From Pittsburgh
Yangguang, I wouldn't oversimplify this. Don't forget about IGPs and signaling. -- Alex Zinin Tuesday, October 17, 2000, 3:16 PM, Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com> wrote: > Hi, > This general notion is correct and it is against the very basic assumption of IP > network where control traffic is mixed together with data traffic. > In circuit switched network, there should be no assumption about the relation of > data plane topology and control plane topology at all. For two NEs to talk, you > don't need a dedicated control link. You only need a TCP session for a NE pair, > not only a whatever bundle. > Cheers, > Yangguang > Vishal.Sharma@tellabs.com wrote: >> >> 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. >> >
|
|