1 / 8

NOBEL WP5 Meeting Nürnberg, April 22/23, 2004

NOBEL WP5 Meeting Nürnberg, April 22/23, 2004. Workpackage 6 RFI from WP4 - Discussion. Ben Niven-Jenkins (benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com). RFI related questions/issues/comments. Open questions What is it WP4 are actually asking of WP6? Feedback on 3 stereotypes in RFI

kasper-wolfe
Télécharger la présentation

NOBEL WP5 Meeting Nürnberg, April 22/23, 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NOBEL WP5 MeetingNürnberg, April 22/23, 2004 Workpackage 6 RFI from WP4 - Discussion Ben Niven-Jenkins (benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com)

  2. RFI related questions/issues/comments • Open questions • What is it WP4 are actually asking of WP6? • Feedback on 3 stereotypes in RFI • What will a typical node look like for each scenario • WP6 comments/feedback so far • More precise switching layer definition/naming • Does LSC include both optical & electrical lambda switching? etc. • Graphical notation (more on this later) • Is strange, confusing and sometimes inconsistent • Burst layer missing (to be delivered by ASEL) • Include static switching capable nodes/NEs?

  3. RFI from WP4 - Graphical notation • To provoke debate/discussion • NOT present the answer • What graphical notation should be used? • To describe nodes • In response to WP4 RFI • Within WP6 deliverables (D9 & D24) • Choices • Standards based (G.805/G.809/G.806) • Bespoke • Others?!?

  4. G.805/G.809/G.806 • Standards based • Provide building blocks to describe networks/equipment • I.732/G.783 - Describe ATM/SDH equipment respectively • Pros • Already specified • Used & recognised by industry • Useful for Network Management too • Cons • Models could be quite complex • Lack of func arch experts in WP6/NOBEL?

  5. G.805/G.809/G.806 • Figure 12-1/G.783 - VC-n path layer atomic functions

  6. G.805/G.809/G.806 • Figure 4-3/I.732 - Detailed functional architecture of an ATM NE

  7. WP4 Suggestion • Bespoke notation • e.g that proposed by WP4 • Pros • May be simpler to those not au fait with func arch • Cons • Will need to be specified & explained • Limited time available • Considerable additional work for little added value? • Re-inventing the wheel? • Seems to rely on colour NMI-A GMPLS/ASON G.709  Client/tributaryports Network side/trunk ports

  8. References • ITU-T Recommendation G.805 (2000), Generic functional architecture of transport networks • ITU-T Recommendation G.809 (2003), Functional architecture of connectionless layer networks • ITU-T Recommendation G.806 (2004), Characteristics of transport equipment - Description methodology and generic functionality • ITU-T Recommendation G.783 (2004), Characteristics of synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) equipment functional blocks • ITU-T Recommendation I.732 (2000), Functional characteristics of ATM equipment • Broadband Networking, Sexton & Reid, ISBN 0-89006-578-0, Chapters 2 & 3 (& 4 for management)

More Related