Subject: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture

From: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:43:41 -0600

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-02.txt

The second DT issue is on the physical architecture which can be supported by GMPLS (from the draft):

ASON does not restrict the architecture choices used, either a co-located architecture or a physically separated architecture may be used. Some members of the Design Team are concerned that GMPLS's concept of the LSR requires a 1-to-1 relationship between the transport plane entity and the control plane entity (Router). They invite CCAMP input on GMPLS capabilities to support multiple architectures i.e. how routing protocols would identify the transport node ID vs. the router or routing controller ID when scoping Link IDs in a link advertisement. 
Deborah

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:18:06 -0000

I assume that the desire is to have one control plane entity mange multiple data plane
entities (not to have one data plane entity managed by multiple control plane entities).

I believe. in this context, it might be helpful to separate the signaling function (and
the associated routing function for the delivery of the signaling messages) from the TE
advertisement routing function. Since we are discussing the routing requirements (this is
the routing DT) can I assume that the discussion is limited to the TE advertisement
routing function, with the aim to have one control plane entity advertise the resources on
behalf of multiple data plane entities.

If all of the above, why could you not simply do this using RFC3630? The only wrinkle
might be that the Router Address TLV is described as carrying "a stable IP address of the
advertising router". Clearly, this needs to be interpreted as "a stable IP address of the
control plane entity that manages the resources on behalf of the data plane entity whose
resources are being advertised."

Am I missing something?

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:43 PM
Subject: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture

The second DT issue is on the physical architecture which can be supported by GMPLS (from
the draft):

ASON does not restrict the architecture choices used, either a co-located architecture or
a physically separated architecture may be used. Some members of the Design Team are
concerned that GMPLS's concept of the LSR requires a 1-to-1 relationship between the
transport plane entity and the control plane entity (Router). They invite CCAMP input on
GMPLS capabilities to support multiple architectures i.e. how routing protocols would
identify the transport node ID vs. the router or routing controller ID when scoping Link
IDs in a link advertisement.
Deborah