The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: Draft Minutes FromPittsburgh
darren.freeland@bt.com wrote: [..] > ATM is not the OTN. When MPLS first burst onto the ATM scene, there was much talk of being able to run ATM switches in a ships-in-the-night mode, partitioning the VCI/VPI space into blocks for allocation by PNNI and LDP(et al). The analogy with IP/ATM is pertinent in so far as we all thought ATM networks would be primarly built for other 'telco' services (migrating across from wherever...) and that IP would be just another client. For some ATM installations this was no doubt quite true, and the 'overlay' model a compelling solution. Yet for those people buying ATM gear primarily to haul IP traffic around their region(s), it seemed equally likely that optimizing the ATM control plane for a single 'client' (IP) was acceptable. I'm not sure it is constructive to insist there is an absolute either/or case to be made for IP/optics. Certainly for work coming out of the IETF environment it is hardly surprising the focus is on IP as the client layer. But this isn't the same as saying an OTN must be built as the IETF wants it. Ships-in-the-night is still feasible on boxes that switch lamdas, timeslots, ... cheers, gja ________________________________________________________________________ Grenville Armitage http://members.home.net/garmitage/ Bell Labs Research Silicon Valley
|
|