Subject: RE: RE: Information about optical routing in MPLS net.

From: Mark Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:17:18 -0500

Only time will be able to answer these questions.

Here's one perspective from a person who claims some expertise in 
optical networking.  Hopefully, the industry will settle on a common 
control plane to facilitate messaging between layers, but one layer is 
unlikely to have full control of another.  Small homogeneous networks 
may be the exceptions.  There are too many complexities in network 
management of different layers to expect multiple layers to collapse 
under one control plane (though the protocols in each may be the same).

The ODSI and OIF may define just such an interface, but unless carriers 
accept it as a reasonable solution to management of their networks, it 
won't be implemented on a large scale.  The ODSI and OIF have both been 
anxious to show quick results, regardless of whether they met the 
requirements of major customers.  I don't want to be too critical here, 
because the ODSI and OIF output may be exactly what we need in our 
networks, but the lack of rigor in development of their specifications 
concerns me.  The OIF has jumped to solutions from the beginning, 
without creating clear requirements for what network providers needed.  
So, issues like whether carriers wanted an IP router to be able to 
fully control an optical cross connect have been ignored.  (Sprint has 
not participated in the ODSI as far as I know.)

The two camps on this issue, even within Sprint, fall into those who 
love IP and those who only accept it as the primary growth protocol 
today.  The IP lovers want IP routers to have flexibility to fully 
control the optical network.  The other group is concerned by the 
history of router failures, IP's limited and complex traffic 
engineering, and the many other protocols that must be supported on a 
common transport infrastructure.  The decision of whether IP routers 
will have the ability to control an optical network may come down to a 
political decision as much as an economic or technical one. 

Mark Loyd Jones
Sprint
Technology Planning & Integration
913-534-5247
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: clapp [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:25 PM
To: tli
Cc: clapp; mpls
Subject: FW: RE: Information about optical routing in MPLS net.

I agree with the notion of optical equipment reusing IP control 
protocols 
to manage the network, but to what extent will routers that are clients 
of 
an optical network manage that network?  The ODSI is defining an 
interface 
(using MPLS signaling protocols) to enable a router to manage an 
optical 
channel, and they say that ATM switches and SONET ADMs can do the same.

Managing a channel isn't the same thing as managing a network, but it's 
a 
beginning.  How far do people think it will go?

George Clapp
voice     973-829-4610
email     [email-masked]

At 11:28 AM 6/15/00 -0700, you wrote:

>  | I would support the view that having the router control the 
optical domain
>  | is not good.  This comes down to a simple desire to see an optical 
layer
>  | which is open to ALL clients - not just IP.  Of course it is 
possible to
>  | allow the router to control the optical layer ... however, this 
idea
>  | overlooks the fact that an operator may wish to carry many other 
clients
>  | across an optical network.
>
>
>The optical plane clearly needs a control plane that provides a 
(lambda)
>routing and signaling infrastructure.  This infrastructure is 
fundamentally
>similar to the routing and signaling technology that we're already 
using
>for MPLS.  Now, we can choose to re-invent this technology, or we can
>leverage the technology that we have already have developed and have
>started to deploy.
>
>Note that this argument is completely independent of the nature of the
>optical client.  Nothing here precludes non-IP usage of the optical 
core.
>It would simply use the IP network as the out-of-band control plane.
>
>Regards,
>Tony

---

From: Bala Rajagopalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:44:08 -0400

Hello:

The problem is exactly as you describe:   clear requirements
to my knowledge, have not emerged from service providers regarding
services at the IP-optical interface. The OIF and ODSI have
assumed  certain service definitions, based on a common-sense
approach covering functionality that is assumed minimally required.
The UNI functionality being defined are based on
these service definitions. Presently, these service definitions do
not require external IP routers to "control" the optical network.
If these service definitions change, then the type and amount of
information
exchange required at the service interface would also change.
The OIF has initiated a task group of carrier representatives to examine
this issue.

It's clearly necessary to get the carrier input into the standardization
process in this area, wherever it occurs (including IETF). Given that many
new
developments have occured in a short time, the carriers may be more
focussed on managing an optical network internally, rather than worry
about the interface definitions. But life goes on in various forums
regardless!

Regards,

Bala

--

Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Angela Chiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:41:16 -0400

Mark,

There may be demands for both models. For example, an established carrier
who provides services to all kinds of clients may choose to have the control
of the optical network within the network while having clients signal
requests only. On the other hand, a relatively new carrier who owns the
transport network that provides only IP service may want a more integrated
control by having IP clients provide limited control to the optical network
besides signaling requests. In order to provide proper controls, certain
information of the optical network (not the full information) may need to be
propagated to the IP clients. So it would be desirable to design a set of
protocols that are extendable to support both models.

Regards,

Angela Chiu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mark
Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 6:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RE: Information about optical routing in MPLS net.

Mark Loyd Jones
Sprint

-----Original Message-----
From: clapp [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:25 PM
To: tli
Cc: clapp; mpls
Subject: FW: RE: Information about optical routing in MPLS net.

George Clapp
voice     973-829-4610

optical domain
layer
possible to
idea
clients
(lambda)
fundamentally
using
core.

---

From: Yangguang Xu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:59:13 -0400

> On the other hand, a relatively new carrier who owns the

Instead of bothering IP clients directly, it can be an external gateway server
that gathers information and control the optical network for IP clients. By
doing this way, you don't need to modify existing routers.

Yangguang