Hi folks, I haven't seen too many comments on our draft "Framework for
GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks" (
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wavelength-switched-01.txt).
So I figured I'd point out some potentially controversial issues that
the draft brings up.
(a) The draft brings up models for the following WDM network elements:
1. WDM links
2. Optical transmitters
3. Wavelength Converters and OEO regenerators
4. ROADMs, FOADMs, optical splitters and combiners.
For items (3) and (4) we are taking the modeling lead rather than
some other SDO. And for ROADMs, in particular, we going beyond the
classic ITU-T "fabric" model (M.3100) which has been the mainstay of any
connection oriented switch (TDM, ATM, MPLS).
(b) The draft brings up three (not one, not two, but three) different
computational models for RWA which can impact GMPLS and PCE protocols:
1. A single PCE computing both the path and wavelength
2. Two distinct PCEs, where one computes the path, and a different
PCE computes the wavelength assignment
3. A PCE computes the path and wavelength assignment is accomplished
in a distributed fashion via signaling (e.g., using label set objects)
Do we really need all three models?
(c) G.709 includes the Optical Multiplex Section and Optical Channels.
RFC4238 was aimed at GMPLS extensions for G.709 (Optical Transport
Network) control. Weren't we finished with all this optical stuff years
ago?
I'd like to think the draft answers some of these questions. I also
think that network element models and the process models are important
enough to warrant this separate framework document. Your opinions are
solicited.
Regards
Greg B.
--
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
