Liaison statement
Call/Connection Separation in ASON and GMPLS
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2007-04-04 |
From Group | ccamp |
From Contact | Adrian Farrel |
To Group | ITU-T-SG-15-Q14 |
To Contacts | Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int> |
Cc | Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com> Kam Lam <hklam@alcatel-lucent.com> Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Dave Ward <dward@cisco.com> Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> CCAMP Mailing List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> |
Response Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Technical Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Purpose | For comment |
Deadline | 2007-05-11 Action Taken |
Attachments | (None) |
Body |
The CCAMP working group of the IETF thanks you for your liaison "Liaison Statement to CCAMP responding to ccamp liaison of 21 February 2007" (Q14/15-LS1-E) dated March 2007. This liaison continues a discussion on the logical separation of calls and connections. The substance of this conversation is as follows: SG15 to CCAMP COM15-LS126-E dated November 2006 2.0 Call/Connection architecture and realization approaches Attachment 2 below provides further elaboration of application scenarios that illustrate G.8080 call/connection control component interactions. The G.8080 architecture may be employed to support various call control realization approaches. It should be noted that the architecture does not dictate any particular implementation and we would request that any solution not impose such limitations. We observe that Section 3.2 of <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-01.txt> explicitly prohibits logical call/connection control separation; i.e., call communications "piggy-backing" on connection communications. CCAMP to SG15 Dated 21st February 2007 Regarding your comments on 2.0 It is important to recognize that [this draft] introduces Call mechanisms into GMPLS as a generic tool. As noted in Section 2, while the mechanisms of this document meet the requirements in RFC 4139, they are intended to have wider applicability than ASON. RFC 4139 details the requirements for ASON. The application of the GMPLS Call to the ASON architecture in order to satisfy the requirements for conveying ASON Call information across a GMPLS interface and for managing ASON Calls at a GMPLS UNI or GMPLS ENNI will require a new Applicability Draft. Thus, section 3.2 of this document does not imply anything about ASON, and certainly not that ASON requires full and logical call/connection separation. We understand that ASON Calls may be implemented through full call/connection separation (as in G.7713.3) or call/connection 'piggybacking' as in G.7713.2. Please confirm that our interpretation of G.8080 and G.7713 is correct. SG15 to CCAMP Q14/15-LS1-E dated March 2007 Regarding call and connection separation the liaison states: "We understand that ASON Calls may be implemented through full call/connection separation (as in G.7713.3) or call/connection 'piggybacking' as in G.7713.2. Please confirm that our interpretation of G.8080 and G.7713 is correct." ASON requires full logical separation of the call and connection which may be implemented with separate or piggybacked call and connection signalling. We would like to complete this discussion by reiterating that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt defines mechanisms that provide full and logical Call/Connection separation. Your initial interpretation of section 3.2 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-01.txt was incorrect and the text states now (and stated then) that "Full and logical Call and Connection separation is required." If you have any further concerns about how call and connection separation is achieved in this work, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard Co-chairs, IETF CCAMP working group |