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: DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh
Following the ongoing discussions, I would like to add a couple of points. The optical network is essentially used to set-up facilities=circuits. This is done by having cross-connects set physical connections between appropriate ports. The actual flow of traffic or packets is transparent to the optical network. >From a functional perspective this looks more like setting up a very, very fat modem pipe between two pieces of equipment using optical network facilities. So from this perspective I don't see why the peer model should be preferred over the client model. Furthermore, there are several standards documents co-authored by multiple carriers indicating the need to support a client model. The T1X1 version of requirements (ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x1.0/0x100490.doc) which has been proposed as a USA contribution to the ITU-T for G.ason discusses needs such as support of third party signaling, support of multiple client naming schemes and connection scheduling. . The OIF Carrier Document is public as a T1X1 document going to the ITU-T (ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x1.0/0x100510.doc) and it also discusses in some detail both requirements and the motivations behind them. Monica A. Lazer Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning 908 234 8462 mlazer@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com [mailto:Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:22 PM To: ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET Cc: kireeti@juniper.net; sc@tellium.com; xuyg@lucent.com; yxue@UU.NET; zwlin@lucent.com Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh [I haven't had time to follow this entire thread, so please correct me if I'm off track with the discussion.] Zhi and Sid are correct. I have trouble seeing any kind of peering model fitting in a multi-client network like Sprints, so I come with that assumption. For an overlay or client model, the specification of protection types doesn't make sense across the UNI. We argued this point at the OIF in Barcelona. Carriers have their own schemes for providing the protection for services, and every implementation of the different architectures provide different results. What I mean is that a Sprint ring network, deployed over our fiber plant using equipment from vendor X, will give you different availability than a ring in another carrier's network using their fiber plant and vendor Y. That's just one example. The availability and BER are all a customer wants or needs. If I can give you 99.999% availability (or whatever availability you want to pay for) with a BER to satisfy your needs, why do you care whether I use ring, mesh, or some other scheme? Grade of service is sufficient. What is needed is standardization of the service grades, so Gold service is the same thing across every network (independent of the unlying protection architecture). Though I haven't followed the details, I seem to remember seeing work on this in another standards body. Mark Loyd Jones Sprint Technology Planning & Integration 913-534-5247 mark.jones@mail.sprint.com > -----Original Message----- > From: zwlin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:17 AM > To: sc > Cc: zwlin; kireeti; xuyg; yxue; ip-optical; mpls > Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: > DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh > > > Hi Sid, > > And to generalize even further, if a service provider sets up three > grades of service (e.g., bronze, gold, platinum), the protection > information should already be embedded within those service > grades. For > example, bronze is no protection at all, gold is dynamic mesh > restoration, and platinum is 1+1 protection. > > I think what is most important to a service provider and > their customers > are the availability of the connection, i.e., is the connection up > 99.99% or 99.999% or some other number. How the service > provider chooses > to handle how to meet that availability number is up to the service > provider and their TE. > > Am I mis-representing the service provider here? Maybe some service > providers can comment on whether the above description sounds right??? > > Thanks > Zhi > > > Sid Chaudhuri wrote: > > > > I don't see why TE and protection require the routers to > specify explicit > > routes. > > The routers can simply specify to the optical layer what > type of optical > > layer protection > > it requires. Based on its traffic flow a router only needs > to know between > > which > > two routers it needs to establish a new lightpath. How the > lightpath is > > routed in the > > optical layer seems to me irrelevant to TE. > > > > Sid Chaudhuri > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:43 AM > To: xuyg@lucent.com; yxue@UU.NET > Cc: ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET > Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. > Was Re: DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh > > Hi, > > > > (router determines the explicit routes). > > > > This point has been raised by several folks. It really > confuses me. If the > > optical switches are equipped with path calculation > ability, what's the benefit > > to bother router to determine the explicit routes within > optical domain > > (assuming router can be smart enough to handle all optical > network specific > > attributes and constrains) than just have routers to > determine the end points of > > optical trails. > > Why does this confuse you? Routers may want to determine > the exact > path that their LSPs take for a number of reasons, including > TE and > protection. If a router doesn't care where its LSPs are > laid out, > it can install loose hops at the boundaries of the optical > cloud. > > Kireeti. > > _______________________________________________ > IP-Optical mailing list > IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical -- Zhi-Wei Lin Lucent Technologies Tel: +1 732 949 5141 101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Rm 3C-512 Fax: +1 732 949 3210 Holmdel, New Jersey 07733-3030 USA Email: zwlin@lucent.com |
|