Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:13:29 -0000

Hi Gert, I think some clarifications are in order here to make the BT
position (ie not just the NH position) clear.  Please see below.  regards,
Neil

Gert Grammel wrote 11 March 2003 15:47 to Monica Lazer:

<snipped>
> Look at the hottest issue under discussion: We are talking a 
> lot about UNI
> features like call/connection separation. Neither Mark nor 
> Neil see the UNI
> becoming service relevant at any time soon - so why is it 
> under discussion right
> now? Is this your priority 1 issue in ITU-T? Is Mark or Neil 
> in a minority
> position in ITU-T? Referring to the Yokohama Meeting this was 
> basically
> Kireeti's request: Please explain what you need and for what purpose.

NH=> A UNI at L1/0 is *not* something we see as important anytime soon.  We
also see no need for coupling with L2/3 (either commercially or
technically).  Thus we want to be able to choose best-of-breed functionality
for L1/0.  We *do* want call/connection separation however, and note this is
independent of the UNI...here is an extract from a colleague of mine on the
ITU lists which sort-of explains why:
"Anyone care to disagree with the notion of a call handle for SPCs in the
ITU-T as a means of bundling under one service instance a customer record
that handles
multiple connections e.g. Virtual Concatenation, with or without LCAS as a
valid application?
Anyone care to disagree that we might want to retrieve information on an SPC
using a single identifier (the call) that shows all connections associated
with that call and the performance of each connection and/or start end of
individual connections?
Anyone care to diagree that the call/connection model cannot be used for
restoration of SPCs?
As for those that want to do UNI on you go...but its not on BT priority
list."
<snipped to end>

---

From: Gert Grammel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:07:55 +0100

Neil,

I think you haven't got my point about call/connection separation. Please have
also a look to my respone to Eve. There can be a discussion about
call/connection separation once there is a kind of shared view on 'why it is
needed'. In
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements-05.txt
the only 'motivating sentence I could find was:

     To support many enhanced optical services, such as scheduled bandwidth
     on demand, diverse circuit provisioning and bundled connections, a
     call model based on the separation of call control and connection
     control is essential.

You gave some practical examples on where you see the need for that. Why not
putting it into a document and share it with everybody?

I also want to thank you to share with us your choice to go for a L0/1
functionality. This is a very clear statement.

Regards

Gert

--
Alcatel Optical Network Division    Gert Grammel
Network Strategy                    phone: +49 711 821 47368
Lorenzstrasse 10                    fax: +49 711 821 43169
D-70435 Stuttgart                   mailto:[email-masked]