The MPLS WG Archive

["Lazer, Monica A, NNAD" <mlazer@att.com>]

Yakov,
As of today I am not convinced that any given alternative is "the best".
However, I do know that from a network operator's perspective the choice for
the best alternative is based on analysis of the capabilities of the
potential options. The basic item here is that there are certain
capabilities that have to be supported by the OTN. I (with other
representatives at T1X1) am working on putting together a list of needed
capabilities, based on several existing requirements documents already
presented in different forums with additional input, if needed from willing
participants. That should form criteria for figuring out which is the best
standard solution for OTN.
We are looking at vendor representatives to help assess the degree to which
different architectures and signaling schemes can support or can be extended
to support these capabilities, and we are looking at interested network
operators to help sift through these requirements and build the criteria
needed for this assessment. I believe that this approach is sound.

In the mean time I can refer you to several documents which are relevant to
our concerns.
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x1.0/0x100490.doc and ITU-T
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x1.0/0x100510.doc

P.S. We are also in the process of reformatting
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x1.0/0x100510.doc and posting it as a draft for
the IETF community. (we would have done it earlier, but putting all the
figures in the stick format .....).


Monica A. Lazer
Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning

908 234 8462
mlazer@att.com


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@cisco.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:57 PM
To:	Lazer, Monica A, NNAD
Cc:	'Yakov Rekhter'; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; David.A.Holmes@disney.com;
Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET;
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 

Monica,

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@cisco.com] 
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 24, 2000 1:58 PM
> To:	neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc:	David.A.Holmes@disney.com; Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com;
> ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET; 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 
> 
> Neil,
> 
> [clipped...]
> 
> > 	(i)	are traditional IP control-plane facets (so that is, for
> > example, v4 addressing, RSVP signalling and a IGP) the correct choice
for
> an
> > OTN?....though to be honest no-one it seems dare raise this most basic
of
> > questions too loudly;
> 
> 
> [MAL] Neil is right. I have not seen any overwhelming evidence as to why a
> protocol used for routing individual packets is the best possible
> alternative to be used to set-up circuits.
> 
yakov > If you have "the correct choice" for an OTN, which is other than 
yakov > GMPLS, please share it with the rest of us (by the way, don't
yakov > forget to include detailed description of why your "correct choice"
yakov > is any better than GMPLS).

If you think that Neil is right, then please share with the rest
of us what do you think is "the best possible alternative"
(please include an explanation on why it is any better than GMPLS).

Yakov.

P.S. On being constructive, let me suggest that rather than continue
telling us that GMPLS is not "the best possible alternative to be used
to set-up circuits", folks who subscribe to this point of view should
start working on "the best possible alternative".