Subject: L1VPN service models

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:09:43 -0800

Adrian, Takeda, et al-

 // rtg-dir cc'ed here

 As promised, I'm reviewing the documents related to the L1VPN effort.
 In my reading of the framework and applicability documents, I got a couple
 of questions, that I think will be important for chartering this work:

  1. The documents discuss three service models (management, signaling, and
     rtg+signalling). Is there an intent to pick a particular one and
     concentrate on the pieces required for it?

  2. The documents include three submodels for the rtg+signaling model.
     Is there an intent to pick one of them for standardization?

 Thank you.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:57 +0100

Hi Alex,

>  As promised, I'm reviewing the documents related to the L1VPN effort.

Thanks!

>      Is there an intent to pick one of them for standardization?

All of the service models are real. That is, they are based on the
discussions in SG13 and come from SPs. Obviously the IETF should only
concentrate on providing solutions that service providers really intend to
deploy.

It is worth noting that the management service model requires no activity
from the IETF.

My personal opinion is that the signaling service model is the best
short-term solution, and is relatively easy to implement, but that in the
longer term we will need to include routing function for a proper and
scalable solution. SPs will be able to say which of the rtg+signaling
models are of most interest.

Just for the record, I don't think it would be a big deal to standardise
all of the models. This is not really an interoperability issue since
these are full network deployment scenarios. Further, the way that models
are satisfied is mainly an applicability statement based on the core
protocols (simplistic example: the difference between the signaling model
and the rtg+signaling model is that you use a routing protocol in the
latter). Also, the necessary changes in the protocols to completely fulfil
the models are not large.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Tomonori TAKEDA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:07:35 +0900

Hi Alex,

Thank you very much for reading the documents.

Our views on service models are as follows.

- Signaling model first

    This model is still effective when the customer network is not yet 
fully GMPLS-enabled.
    That is, only the CE needs to have GMPLS signaling functions. It would 
be easier to
    introduce this model to existing networks.

- Signaling and routing model next

    This model is especially effective when the customer network is 
GMPLS-enabled. Virtual
    Link and Virtual Node are expected to be more deployable submodels (at 
least for the
    moment)

- Management model would be good for early deployment as well, but as 
Adrian pointed out,
    I think there are very little areas which falls under IETF work.

Best regards,

Tomonori