datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Liaison Statement: Call/Connection Separation in ASON and GMPLS

Submission Date: 2007-04-04
From: IETF CCAMP WG (Adrian Farrel)
To: ITU-T Q14/15 (Greg Jones)
Cc:Stephen Trowbridge
Kam Lam
Ross Callon
Dave Ward
Scott Bradner
CCAMP Mailing List
Response Contact: Adrian Farrel
Deborah Brungard
Technical Contact: Adrian Farrel
Deborah Brungard
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