The MPLS WG Archive

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Alex,

I wasn't simplifying it. Indeed, I make it more complicated and generic. IGP and
signaling shouldn't make invalid assumptions either. Circuit switched transport
network is different from IP network. 

Yangguang


Alex Zinin wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >> >