ITU -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector Working
Document 11-R2
STUDY GROUP 15
_________________________
Milan, 06-08 February 02
Questions: 11/15 (+
Q.9, 12, 14, 16 & 19)
SOURCE: Rapporteur FOR Q.11/15
TITLE: REPORT
OF THE MILAN EXPERTS MEETING (06-08/02/02)
___________________________
Within
ITU-T SG 15, Q.11 deals with "Signal structures, interfaces and
interworking for transport networks".
During
the October meeting of Q.11/15, Lucent Technologies (refer to D.301 to 304 - Oct. 01) presented the concept of the
so called "Virtual Backplane Interface (VBI)". They proposed
that this new interface is standardized by SG 15 in order to allow the
interconnection, in a multi-vendor environment, of optical line interfaces and
a distant photonic matrix fabric. It was agreed to hold an experts meeting
dedicated to VBI in order to progress the discussion on the subject.
That
meeting was held in MILAN (Italy) from the 6th (PM) to the 8th (AM) of February
02, at the kind invitation of Alcatel.
The
meeting chaired by the Q.11 Rapporteur (G. JONCOUR, France Telecom), was
attended by 26 representatives (see Annex 1) during the first session and by 15
to 20 persons during the rest of the meeting.
The
list of the Working Documents examined during the meeting is reproduced in
Annex 2. An electronic copy of each of them can be found at:
http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg15/sg15/wp3/q11/0202.
The
main results of the discussions held during the meeting are reported below.
WD
3, submitted jointly by AT&T, Ciena
and Sprint, supported the concept behind OLI or VBI. It attempted to identify
the issues associated to it and proposed a way to move forward, if agreed, in
the standardization process of the VBI by SG 15.
WD
4 (Worldom and Nayna Networks), WD 8,
9 and 10 (Lucent Technologies) presented equipment configurations and
applications that motivate the need for the definition of a VBI.
In
WD 1, Marconi indicated that they do not believe that there is a need to
create standards for a new interface. Orally, they recommended that, at a
minimum, the physical interface to be used to carry the VBI logical information
is selected amongst the already existing ones ; i.e. that the work on VBI does
not result in the definition of any new physical interface.
WD
2 contained the report of the SG 15
Representative to IETF CCAMP (W. ALANQAR, Sprint) on the most recent activity
held within that Working Group and the IPO one. WD 2 contained a few
information regarding the OLI (Optical Link Interface) and LMP (Link Management
Protocol). Delegates mentioned that the results of the work on LMP should be
considered when selecting the protocol to be run over the VBI. The rest
(updated after the March 02 meeting of the IETF) of the document will be
considered by Q.11 during the next meeting of SG 15 (April-May 02).
WDs
6 and 7, from Lucent, were companion
contributions to respectively WD 9 and 10. Already discussed by Q.12, they were
not presented during the meeting.
The
discussion that followed the presentation of the documents mentioned above
showed that the term VBI and even its original definition were not anymore
relevant, in particular the VBI does not transport payload traffic. This led to
the identification of a new concept : the Detector-Controller Interface (DCI).
The following definition of the DCI has been adopted:
The Detector-Controller Interface (DCI) is an
interface between a component representing the control view of the anomalies
detector state (TAP) in one NE and a control function in another NE. The currently
identified information flowing across such an interface is the trail/link
status (such as SD, SF, idle, OK, message grouping) and connection state (such
as in service or out of service).
The
purpose of the DCI is to carry information related to the detection of
anomalies in a network element to another one in which actions have to be taken
consequently. The DCI is therefore considered as a means to notify states
between 2 different NEs.
The
intention of the DCI is to allow NEs from multiple vendors to cooperate to
perform a network function such as protection or restoration.
The rest of the meeting was devoted to exchanging information between
the experts with the view to get a shared understanding of the DCI and
eventually help to determine if it represents a valid study item for SG 15.
Annex
3 contains the results of that work. It includes illustrations of the so far
identified configurations/applications for which the use of a DCI is
applicable. It also identifies the issues that may need to be addressed if SG
15 decides to go for its standardization. It finally proposes an allocation of
work amongst various questions of the Study Group.
It
was felt worthwhile to inform IETF CCAMP and the OIF Signalling and
architecture Working Groups of the results obtained during the meeting. A
communication to these groups has been prepared (see Annex 4).
The
next meeting of Q.11 will be held during the next meeting of SG 15 (29/04/02 to
10/05/02 in Geneva).
Q.11
proposes that the herein contained information is forwarded to all the possibly
involved other Questions of SG 15 in order to take a decision as regards its
standardization. Contributions on DCI are therefore requested. They should, in
particular, allow the identification of the areas for which a specific effort
is consequently needed.
Q.11/15
experts felt that the DCI issues should now be progressed under Q.12/15 from an
architecture and applications point of view, such as restoration/protection,
etc.
All
the interested people are encouraged to submit contributions to that Question.
- Annex 1 -
List
of participants
|
Name |
Company |
Country |
|
J-L. FERRANT |
Alcatel |
France |
|
D. BELLER |
Alcatel |
Germany |
|
V. HŽGELE |
Alcatel |
Germany |
|
A. BELLATO |
Alcatel |
Italy |
|
S. BELLOTI |
Alcatel |
Italy |
|
V. MIRIELLO |
Alcatel |
Italy |
|
m. sluyski |
AMCC |
USA |
|
D. BRUNGARD |
AT&T |
USA |
|
M. LAZER |
AT&T |
USA |
|
S. BINETTI |
Cisco |
Italy |
|
G. JONCOUR |
FT |
France |
|
Y. LE LOUEDEC |
FT |
France |
|
M. HANDLEY |
Fujitsu |
UK |
|
M. VISSERS |
Lucent Technologies |
NL |
|
C. DALOIA |
Lucent Technologies |
USA |
|
G. NEWSOME |
Lucent Technologies |
USA |
|
S. SANKARANARAYANAN |
Lucent Technologies |
USA |
|
G. ABBAS |
Marconi |
UK |
|
M. BETTS |
Nortel |
Canada |
|
L. PRATTICO |
Nortel |
USA |
|
M. MAYER |
Nortel |
USA |
|
N. NAGATSU |
NTT |
Japan |
|
J. HEILES |
Siemens |
Germany |
|
W. TELLER |
Tellabs |
USA |
|
C. BROWNMILLER |
Worldcom |
USA |
|
J. GAMBONY |
Worldcom |
USA |
-
Annex 2 -
Documentation
for the meeting
WD nø |
Title |
Source |
1 |
VBI standardisation |
Marconi |
2 * |
Report on IETF IPO and CCAMP
meeting, 10-14 Dec. 01 |
SG 15 Represent. to IETF CCAMP |
3 * |
OLI/VBI standardization strategy |
AT&T, Ciena, Sprint |
4 * |
An example application in support
of VBI |
WorldCom, Nayna Networks |
5 |
Agenda and documentation for the
meeting |
Rapporteur Q.11/15 |
6 * |
Link Restoration Application |
Lucent Technologies |
7 * |
Application of provisioning
monitors along a connection |
Lucent Technologies |
8 * |
Functional models of equipment
configurations |
Lucent Technologies |
9 * |
Link restoration control
interfaces (Internal and external) |
Lucent Technologies |
10 * |
Monitor provisioning control
interfaces (Internal and external) |
Lucent
Technologies |
11 |
Report of the meeting |
Rapporteur Q.11/15 |
* Also submitted to Q.12 (Milan, 04-06/02/02)
-
Annex 3 -
The
Detector-Controller Interface (DCI) concept
I - Definition
The
Detector-Controller Interface (DCI) is an interface between a component
representing the control view of the anomalies detector state (TAP) in one NE
and a control function in another NE. The currently identified information
flowing across such an interface is the trail/link status (such as SD, SF,
idle, OK, message grouping) and connection state (such as in service or out of
service).
II - Related
configurations/applications
CF
= Control Function - NE = Network Element
Figure
1a - General configuration (showing 3 NEs)
Figure
1b - G.805 view (showing 6 NEs)
Figure 2a – Link/trail state notification (Case 1)
Figure 2b – Link/trail state notification (Case 2)
Figure 3a – Connection state notification (Case 1)
Figure
3b – Connection state notification (Case 2)
III - Associated issues
The
following items have been identified as potentially needing to be addressed
when standardizing the DCI:
ú
Information, parameters to be
transferred
ú
Information
format/coding
ú
Transfer bitrate
ú
Protocol
ú
Information/message latency
ú
Reliability/resilience of the
information
ú
Physical interface
In
addition to the implementation of a DCI between the 2 NE containing the
detectors and the control function, the fact that these NEs are implemented and
interconnected in conformance with others standards is also essential to their
global interoperability.
IV - Questions of SG 15 to be involved in the
standardization process:
The
opinion of Q.11 is that the following experts should be involved in the standardization
of the DCI:
ú
Q.12 : study the
applications/architectures of this DCI
ú
Q.14 : identify the information
to be carried over the DCI
ú
Q.11 : define the logical
interface of the DCI
ú
Q.9 : address equipment aspects
related to DCI
ú
Q.16 : develop, if found
necessary, a new physical interface for supporting the DCI
ú
Q.19 : insure the coordination
between the above questions
-
Annex 4 -
Communication
to IETF CCAMP WG and OIF Signalling and Architecture WGs
QUESTIONS: Q.11/15 SOURCE: ITU-T
Study Group 15 TITLE: Detector-Controller
Interface (DCI) _____________ COMMUNICATION STATEMENT TO: IETF
CCAMP Working Group and OIF Signalling and
Architecture WGs APPROVAL: Q.11/15 FOR: Information
and comment DEADLINE: 15th April 02 CONTACT: Gilles JONCOUR Tel: +33 2 96
05 24 69 Fax: +33 2 96 05 12
52 Email: gilles.joncour@francetelecom.com
|
Q.11/15
met in Milan (Italy) from the 6th to the 8th o February
02, with the mandate to further discuss the subject of Virtual Backplane
Interface (VBI) which had been introduced during the previous meeting of SG 15
(Geneva, Oct. 01).
Please
find attached the report of the meeting. We would be interested in receiving
any comment you may have regarding what we now call the
"Detector-Controller Interface (DCI)".
__________________