That's extremely interesting, Ken. Thanks. Although I don't know how much weight to assign to it.
What SCMR and ODSI propose doing is closer to how today's routed environments work through the use of IP, while ASON is more like a centralized intelligence store, very much like [even deriving from] SS7 and AIN.
See the diagram on p. 4 of the following pdf, and see what I mean. They speak about, and depict, a centralized "control plane" with direct signaling links to each network element.
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1x1/x15.99/9x152800.pdf
As if the diagram weren't enough, here's a direct quote from the same doc:
"The signaling method should use as much as possible, existing public circuit switched network protocols, (e.g., CCS7, PNNI, etc.) to minimize overall network cost."
Now, does ASON's differences with ODSI equate to the same level of difference that exists between the principles being fostered by OIF and those of ODSI?
It's a tad ironic, wouldn't you say, that Ciena (and I would assume Cisco, too, since they are deep-rooted in the OIF forum) would be promoting the perpetuation of a circuit-switched paradigm with a centralized intelligence model. One which not only premiers ATM as a viable form of transport, but one that also makes allowances for STS (Synchronous Transport Signal, the electrical equivalent of optical carrier levels <OC's> in SONET) considerations, at the same time.
To begin focusing on "STS" considerations is to really go back to hugging the ground, so to speak, if you are speaking in optical terms. Why make special provisions for SONET's electrical interfaces in a new optical switching model? Those things can be taken care of a half-layer up the stack by the network elements that have them.
I thought that the salient position here was to attempt to depart from these things, moving, effectively, in the other direction.
Ciena's comments in the uplinked message seem to say, in not so many substantive words, that the contrasting "distributed" intelligence model that SCMR is promoting is inherently inferior. Or, was is simply that SCMR's ability to get their message across the the power players was inferior?
I don't think that the full story has been told about this one yet. But, then again, I've never been accused of trying to stand by the power structure in these kinds of situations. It wouldn't be the first time that power and positioning of the titans took precedence over an optimal set of protocols.
We now need to see if and where syllogisms exist between ASON and OIF, when comparing them to ASON. While OIF was founded by Ciena and Cisco, ASON seems to have LU and NT behind it, primarily. Comments welcome.
FAC |
