ccamp-2----Page:5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Response to ASON Routing Requirements (cont.) Main comments (cont.) Diversity (e.g., link & node) is considered a result of path computation and a requirement from ASON Should move Section 3 security requirement to an informative appendix Based on current definitions, ASON SNPP link is a more general construct than a TE link and should not be assumed to be equivalent (Draft Sec. 4) Text proposed to clarify identification of ASON routing components (Draft Sec. 4.1) Text proposed to describe preventing disruption of existing connection services (Draft Conclusion) The Conclusions raise issues concerning Reachability. First, UNI Transport Resource Addresses are not required to be advertised. Second, there may be IP formatted addresses used by L3 applications and functions. These are distinct and separate from SNPP names used for transport resources as well as UNI Transport Resource Addresses. Their reachability is independent of transport addresses/names. Text proposed to clarify that the architecture is fixed and its the component distribution that is free. The Conclusions raise an issue concerning the GMPLS LSR concept and separation of function in ASON. Our conclusion is that ASON requires the ability to support separation of control and data plane entities and the ability to support different types of distribution of function. |