Re: Please help to clarify some things!
I thought may be an analogy would help. A WAN environment is somewhat
similar to the airport used by many airliners (carriers) to transport
passengers and cargo. The air traffic control system is analogous to the WAN
operations and management system and independent from each airliners own
internal management system (flight schedules, ticketing, maintenance, etc.).
The requirements for the air traffic control system are very different to
the airlines internal management system. If the first one fails, it can
cause a disaster. If the latter fails, well we have all experienced it, lost
reservations, lost baggage, etc.
The point is that if the facilities are not owned by the service provider,
then there needs to be a transport management system.
-Nader
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@airmail.net>
To: mick@cmetric.com <mick@cmetric.com>
Cc: 'HSSG' <stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org>
Date: Sunday, September 12, 1999 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
Mick,
Again, you are confusing the issues. Out of band network management can use
IP
as the transport protocol. TL1 over TCP/IP is commonly used. What is not
used
is element and network management based on SNMP in band with the customer
data
for transmission network elements. IS-IS is also used as the transport
protocol
for transmission network element and network management. The element
management
protocol for IS-IS is CMISE/Q3.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom
Mick Seaman wrote:
> Roy,
>
> In terms of not confusing issues, can you clarify your statement "it will
> not do for the carrier transmissions systems".
>
> Do you mean that IP based network management (a) does not possess the
> functionality, or (b) the people who may procure the equipment have other
> ideas so they will not buy this irrespective of technical merit?
>
> Further can we clarify here what you mean by "carrier transmission
systems".
> If these are existing pieces of equipment what you say is trivially true.
If
> not then you presume that there are entirely new systems to be built for
> which either (a) or (b) above. Perhaps some of the purchasers can
articulate
> their view on (a) themselves.
>
> Mick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 4:01 PM
> To: mick@cmetric.com
> Cc: 'HSSG'
> Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
>
> Mick,
>
> I am not in any way suggesting a change in the way that IP based data
> communications systems change the way that they do network management. I
am
> stating that it will not do for the carrier transmissions systems. Please
> do
> not confuse the separate issues.
>
> Customer Ethernet switches at either end of a WAN path will still use the
> SNMP
> network management that is so common. It may be that some transmission
> equipment vendors may even be convinced to provide some SNMP visibility at
> the
> 10GbE interface on the long haul transmission line terminating or DWDM
> equipment.
>
> The common service carriers will want to have something other than SNMP
> available for the equipment that they own, and the element management
> communications for that equipment will be carried out of band. This is a
> totally separate issue from the SNMP management of Ethernet switches.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
>
> Mick Seaman wrote:
>
> > Roy, I agree that standards that have been put in place by the
> > ITU/T1/BellCore people differ from those in the IP data world. I
strongly
> > disagree that the IP data world does not provide an adequate framework
for
> > providing commercial data services that the enterprises that use them
> would
> > regard as mission critical. So from my point of view I can fully accept
> that
> > a difference exists as a fact but I am not in the least motivated to
> > accomodate this difference by wrecking the very successful foundation
that
> > we have in the Ethernet world, nothing that has been said convinces me
> that
> > the difference represents a necessity for change on our part.
> >
> > Mick
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
> > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 2:06 PM
> > To: mick@cmetric.com
> > Cc: 'HSSG'
> > Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
> >
> > Mick,
> >
> > I am not complaining about unreliable network management for IP data
> > services.
> > I was writing about a requirement as part of the ITU/T1/BellCore
standards
> > that
> > the network management messaging communications for transmission systems
> be
> > fully reliable. This is something that IP data people have not had to
> deal
> > with. It comes down to a simple distinction between TCP based messaging
> and
> > UDP
> > based messaging. It involves the standards for out of band network
> > management
> > on commercial transmission systems instead of the inband network
> management
> > standard that is used on IP based data systems. I have worked on both
> types
> > of
> > systems and services for years. There is a difference. I have been
> > attempting
> > to get the IP data people to realize that the standards that are in
place
> > for
> > commercial transmission systems and services are different than those
for
> IP
> > based data systems.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> > MCI WorldCom
> >