Re: Fw: more changes to the base draft

On l=F6rdag, dec 6, 2003, at 10:03 Asia/Seoul, Khosravi, Hormuzd M =
wrote:

> Hi Avri
>
> I had one question on this..
> Technically speaking GRMP seems quite different from GSMP v3
> to me. How could you possibly merge these protocols ?
> I must be missing something here.
>
>
> Thanks
> Hormuzd
>
>


The structure of the two protocols is very similar in that GRMP uses=20
similar protocol protocol mechanisms, in fact GRMP imports much of its=20=

protocol structure from GSMP almost completely.  What is different,=20
primary, is the way the information is expressed.  So yes, it is true=20
that the messages for setting state for GMPLS objects is different then=20=

the way GRMP sets state for the LFBs, but this can be accommodated by=20
introducing a new message type, or two, for LFBs.  I am also assuming,=20=

though I have not worked it out yet, that much of the technology=20
specific changes that have been made to support various optical=20
technologies could also be used.

As I indicated in my first message to Weiming, we would need to do some=20=

work to see if the merge is really feasible, but on the basis of my=20
initial review, I don't think it would be impossible.  My initial=20
reasons when the ForCES group first started out for not really being=20
interested in having GSMP adapted to support ForCES was that it could=20
complicate the simple structure of GSMP.  Now that we are almost=20
finished with the rework of GSMP, it would be V3.1, for GMPLS, the=20
structure has gotten at once more flexible and more complex and I think=20=

the merge could be done with a minimum of pain.

The advantage I see in this is that a controller that could use GSMP=20
for controlling GMPLS switches might, with the addition of some=20
specific GRMP-like modules could also support IP forwarders.  This=20
could be a very strong argument for the folks in Asia, and perhaps=20
elsewhere, who are already developing and using GSMP for switch=20
control.  I guess the point is that now that the GSMP base has been=20
generalized to support any of the varieties of GMPLS switch, it is more=20=

like other general carrier protocols  (except that it is a vertical=20
protocol) - mostly what you have to do is define a payload format for=20
the content you wish to carry.

But, this is a very high level analysis, and if we were to do this, and=20=

that would involve ForCES and AD consultation and charter update etc,=20
we would need to put together a design team to work out the details for=20=

real.

a.