The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <3E5E9CDE.A86FB1BF@lucent.com>, Stephen Trowbridge writes:
> Kireeti,
> I'm not sure that this is the same.
> IETF develops control plane technology that can control SONET/SDH
> equipment used to carry physical layer connections supporting an
> IP network. Presumably SONET/SDH doesn't need to change for this
> application as long as virtual concatenation, etc. support the
> necessary pipe sizes.
> 
> If SONET/SDH did not have what was required for this application,
> I assume that IETF should first come to T1X1/ITU-T for the needed
> extensions (much as ITU-T first came to IETF for the needed extensions-
> remember?). If ITU-T then was not interested to help and if standardized
> SONET/SDH did not meet the requirements, I suppose
> that IETF would have the right to do what it needed for its
> application and inform ITU-T what it had done.
> 
> ITU-T wants to apply the control plane technology to a general
> purpose (not necessarily IP) transport network. In contrast to
> the IP network, you have demarcation points User/Network and
> between network operators for billing purposes, etc. This
> leads to some new requirements (e.g., call & connection separation)
> not met by the base protocol. Is it reasonable that we want to
> use the (G)MPLS protocols as a base and (inside or outside of
> IETF) define the minimum set of extensions to meet the requirements,
> or should we just have stuck with PNNI?
> Regards,
> Steve


Steve,

Go right a head and use PNNI.  Don't forget to run it over CLNP on a
cell based infrastructure.  :-)

Curtis


> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> > 
> > > If they decide not to be involved and the other SDO goes ahead with
> > > developing their own solution, they don't need to bless the extension,
> > > or even like it, but they do need to accept it.
> > 
> > Going back to the examples that Deborah brought up: what if other SDOs
> > produced variants of SDH -- would you say that the ITU "do need to
> > accept it"?
> > 
> > Kireeti.
>