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, > 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. Do you mind explaining how you expect the two components to work over a TCP connection btw non-adjacent routers? Thanks, Alex. > 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. >> >> >
|
|