ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

2011-09-29 10:48:38
Dear all,

As also being one of the participants directly involved in the SONET/SDH 
standardization process from its inception, I would like to echo Andy's 
sentiments.

Best regards,
Eve

________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of 
andy(_dot_)bd(_dot_)reid(_at_)bt(_dot_)com
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn; 
huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The 
Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

All,

First, let me say I have no absolutely desire to enter into debate into the 
substantive matter of this draft.

If the purpose of the draft is to be 'Informational' then the reader would have 
a reasonable expectation for the information to be correct, especially if it is 
referencing matters beyond its immediate scope. And the section 5.1 is simply 
factually wrong.

Huub's comments on SONET/SDH give an accurate critique.

If the authors did want to make meaningful reference to where two separate 
standards emerged, then the primary rates (T1 and E1), their associated voice 
coding (mu-law and A-law), and PDH multiplexing hierarchies might be a more 
meaningful place to start. With a great deal of hard work and good will on all 
sides, SONET/SDH achieved an single effective standard bridging these two 
largely incompatible worlds.

Andy

From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of 
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
Sent: 29 September 2011 16:10
To: huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The 
Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

All,

 From my personal knowledge, the comments from Huub are accurate.  (I was an 
active participant at the 1988 ITU meeting in Seoul where the SDH frame format 
was agreed).

The IETF should not publish a consensus approved draft that contains inaccurate 
information about a standard that was developed outside the IETF.

The gross inaccuracy in the characterization of SONET/SDH leads me to question 
the validity of the document.

Regards,

Malcolm

Huub van Helvoort 
<huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Sent by: 
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>

29/09/2011 02:00 AM
Please respond to
huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>


To

ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>

cc



Subject

Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>        (The 
Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to        
Informational RFC










All,

Why section 5.1 is an author's impression:

Statement:
"SONET and SDH were defined as competing standards"
Fact:
SONET was developed first by ANSI based on the 24 channel PDH hierarchy
existing in North America and Japan. The basic rate based on DS3.
Some time later ETSI developed SDH based on the 30 channnel PDH deployed
in Europe. The basic rate based on E4 (3x DS3).
To be able to deploy SONET and SDH worldwide the regional SDO experts
came together in ITU-T to define a frame structure and a frame-rate
that would allow interconnection of SONET and SDH.
A compromise was agreed and approved in an ITU-T meeting in Seoul
in 1988.

Statement:
"Significant confusion resulted from this situation."
Fact:
The result of the compromise is documented in ITU-T recommendation
G.707 which includes the frame definition and frame-rates, and
documents how SONET and SDH can interconnect.

Statement:
"Equipment manufacturers needed to select the market segment they
intended to address. The cost of chipsets for a limited market
increased.
Fact:
Most equipment vendors did/do sell their equipment in both regions.
I was involved in chip designs for SONET/SDH in several companies,
they all support SONET and SDH in a single chip, and the selection
is a matter of provisioning, the addition cost to support both was
minimal (single chip: higher volume = lower cost)

Statement:
"Service providers needed to consider the merits of the two standards
and their long-term role in the industry when examining their
investment options.
Fact:
Because the regions or applicability of SONET and SDH are well
known SPs do not have to make this consideration.

Statement:
"Only a limited number of equipment manufactures were available
for selection."
Question:
What do you consider a limited number?

Statement:
"As SONET was considered to be the variant, interworking had to be
performed before the SDH-based segment was reached."
Fact:
SONET is *NOT* a variant it is equivalent to SDH.
The reason for placing the interconnection functionality on the SONET
side was that in a previous agreement on interconnection the
functionality was placed on the European side.

Conclusion:
There is a single frame structure used by both SONET and SDH.
This is documented in ITU-T recommendation G.707 (ANSI and ETSI
still have their SONET resp. SDH standard available in their
own documentation, but they are aligned with G.707).
It depends on the application of the frame structure in an environment
with 24 channel legacy PDH to call it SONET and in an evironment
with 30 channel legacy PDH to call it SDH.
The meeting in Seoul in 1988 shows that SDOs can compromise to
find a common frame structure that can be used in different
regions/applications.

Best regards, Huub.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>