Subject: RE: [GSMP] Need consensus for support of protection in GSMP

From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:53:10 -0400

I agree that we should limit GSMP to protection support.  This is because
protection action is localized whereas restoration actions span multiple
switches.  Note that the definition of protection I'm using is an action
that does not change the endpoints of the connection whereas in restoration,
a new connection is used that replaces the failed connection (endpoints
change).  See G.841 "Types and Characteristics of SDH Network Protection
Architectures ".

-----Original Message-----
From: Sundell, Kenneth [ERK:AA50:EXCH] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 09:48
To: gsmp
Subject: [GSMP] Need consensus for support of protection in GSMP

Hi,

we had some discussions regarding recovery in Vienna (both at the 
working group meeting and off-line with the design teams). We had a 
tenetative decision among the editors to support protection only. I 
would like to check the consensus on the mailing list on that 
"decision", i.e. to support protection but not adding restoration to the 
protocol. We would leave restoration up to the GSMP controller.

Please give your thoughts to the list within two weeks from now.

Regards,
Ken

_______________________________________________
GSMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp