The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Dec> msg00347



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[Isis-wg] Question on DCC Architecture

  • From: Mike Truskowski <truskows@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 7:59:16 PST
  • Cc: Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com, james.d.carlson@east.sun.com, azinin@cisco.com, tli@procket.com, echang@pocketmail.com, isis-wg@spider.juniper.net, skatukam@cisco.com, mpls@UU.NET

The issue is simply stated... while you look at ISIS to
enhance it for "IP".  Don't break it for "CLNS" because 
there are 10's of thousands of sonet/sdh NE's relying on
ISIS today.

Certainly, we in the NSIF can move forward creating an IP
stack... but the rings which are already using clns on
the DCC will be there for awhile longer.

I would prefer running a native protocol end2end while others
would rather see clns on the dcc and ip2clns mediation on
the DCN.
There are no simple answers here. 

Mike

> 
> > Another issue not covered is the operational use of IS-IS on this
> > channel.  As IS-IS is used by SONET terminal/regenerator gear, what is
> > going to happen to all the CPU and memory constrained ADMs out there
> > when they start receiving the LSPs with all of the TE and GMPLS TLVs? 
> > Many are limited to less than 50 nodes and less than 100 links in an
> > Area -- and the Node/Link TLVs are certainly smaller than the TE/GMPLS
> > TLVs.
> 
> This is something that a body equivalent to Nanog in SONET world should 
> probably be concerned with. ISIS working group has as primary topic the 
> standardization of bits on the wires between boxes to make sure that 
> different vendors interoperate. Although things like application
> guidelines and protocol analysis is common, it would be vain trying to 
> publish RFCs with implementation guidelines since technology is still
> galloping forward @ a speed that makes such publications often obsolete
> within months. As to deployment issues with older gear that you outline,
> IETF has been pretty much shaped by the Darvinian ISP approach "get them to 
> upgrade your software, get them to upgrade your hardware, if they can't,
> throw the gear away and pick up a better vendor". As an alternate solution,
> you may just choose not to deploy all that optional new stuff ..
> 
> 	--- tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list  -  Isis-wg@external.juniper.net
> http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>