The MPLS WG Archive

[Paul Joseph <PJoseph@zaffire.com>]

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:braja@tellium.com]
>  Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:42 AM
>  To: John Drake
>  Cc: 'darren.freeland@bt.com'; azinin@cisco.com; 
>  neil.2.harrison@bt.com;
>  mpls@UU.NET; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com
>  Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: Draft
>  MinutesFrom Pittsburgh
>  
>  
>  
>  In the case of IP over optical,
>  I would just like to add that once you do have an IP-centric control
>  plane within optical networks, you could have routing between IP and
>  optical network that in fact supports the overlay model, 
>  alleviating the
>  scalability concerns that arise with IP over ATM model 
>  described above.
>  
>  It's then a question of the coupling between the IP and 
>  optical control
>  planes. This can be as loose or tight as you want, for 
>  example, supporting
>  a UNI that separates the control planes, or the peer model 
>  without any
>  separation.


Not sure what you mean here - terminology seems all different - MPLS in
itself separates the control plane from the user plane - that fact that we
use an IP control plane with an Optical or ATM data plane makes that evident
- the peer model is a peering at the IP level and the UNI just provides a
form of signalling between the 2 peers - so they are one and the same thing
- once you have decided to use MPLS.


Paul
>  
>  I do agree that if  you considered other types of clients,  the
>  peer model constructs don't seem  practical.
>  
>  regards,
>  
>  --
>  
>  Bala Rajagopalan
>  Tellium, Inc.
>  2 Crescent Place
>  P.O. Box 901
>  Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
>  Tel: (732) 923-4237
>  Fax: (732) 923-9804
>  Email: braja@tellium.com
>  
>