Subject: RE: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:03:06 -0800

Hi Avri

I had one question on this..
Technically speaking GRMP seems quite different from GSMP v3
to me. How could you possibly merge these protocols ?
I must be missing something here.

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:55 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

Hi Weiming,

comments inline.

On onsdag, nov 26, 2003, at 17:52 Asia/Seoul, Wang,Weiming wrote:

>
>  Hi Avri,
>
>  I'm writing to seek the possiblity in GSMP base header to add 
> following items:
>
>  1. A proirity flag to indicate the processing priority for the 
> message.

Can you explain how you would think this should be used?

>  2. An optional checksum part in GSMP for error control.

Again, can you explain how you would want to see this used?

>
>  If possible, I also ask to leave some space in the Version field for 
> possible including of other
>  possible protocols like GRMP 
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wang-forces-grmp-01.txt).

  If the two protocols were to be merged it would seem to make the most 
sense to me for there to be one base protocol which supported the MPLS 
and GMPLS mode as well as the router mode.  I would personally be 
uncomfortable with one version of the protocol for switches and one for 
routers.  In many respects I think that the support  one would need for 
adding messages for router support already exists.

If this merge is something that is of interest to the Wg and something 
we can get IESG support for (i think it would require a charter 
amendment) then I think we could certainly work out the details here on 
the list.

I do think your first 2 requests can be discussed within the current  
work without any charter  problems.  For the other, I would like to 
hear from other list members on whether it is something that the WG 
should pursue.

a.

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

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

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:50:14 +0900

> I must be missing something here.

The structure of the two protocols is very similar in that GRMP uses 
similar protocol protocol mechanisms, in fact GRMP imports much of its 
protocol structure from GSMP almost completely.  What is different, 
primary, is the way the information is expressed.  So yes, it is true 
that the messages for setting state for GMPLS objects is different then 
the way GRMP sets state for the LFBs, but this can be accommodated by 
introducing a new message type, or two, for LFBs.  I am also assuming, 
though I have not worked it out yet, that much of the technology 
specific changes that have been made to support various optical 
technologies could also be used.

As I indicated in my first message to Weiming, we would need to do some 
work to see if the merge is really feasible, but on the basis of my 
initial review, I don't think it would be impossible.  My initial 
reasons when the ForCES group first started out for not really being 
interested in having GSMP adapted to support ForCES was that it could 
complicate the simple structure of GSMP.  Now that we are almost 
finished with the rework of GSMP, it would be V3.1, for GMPLS, the 
structure has gotten at once more flexible and more complex and I think 
the merge could be done with a minimum of pain.

The advantage I see in this is that a controller that could use GSMP 
for controlling GMPLS switches might, with the addition of some 
specific GRMP-like modules could also support IP forwarders.  This 
could be a very strong argument for the folks in Asia, and perhaps 
elsewhere, who are already developing and using GSMP for switch 
control.  I guess the point is that now that the GSMP base has been 
generalized to support any of the varieties of GMPLS switch, it is more 
like other general carrier protocols  (except that it is a vertical 
protocol) - mostly what you have to do is define a payload format for 
the content you wish to carry.

But, this is a very high level analysis, and if we were to do this, and 
that would involve ForCES and AD consultation and charter update etc, 
we would need to put together a design team to work out the details for 
real.

a.

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:25:46 +0800

Hi Hormuzd,

Although from the perspective of low, fine grain and implementation level, ForCES has been defined 
in the way that seems quite different from GSMP,  the overall architecture is still the same, which is, they
are all based on a control and forwarding separation and open programmable architecture. Therefore, 
the idea GRMP is based is that it may not be an unwise approach to aboriginally consider and leave some 
space for possible future integration of the techniques that catually belongs to the same technical category and have quite the 
same application destination ( an open programmable Network Element). Of course there may be
problems to actually make such an integration currently, but  we just think  it means to make it a thinking point in advance
and have it go as a gradual process. 

Thank you for the attention.

Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
To: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

Hi Avri

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----

Hi Weiming,

comments inline.

a.

_______________________________________________
GSMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp#™¨¥Šx%ŠËFHÃâz×è®m¶›?ÿ0Ö'~Šàþf¢–f§þX¬¶)ß£ø,š