text:
J. Sadler
S. Shew
D. Ward
October 2006
Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against
Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing Requirements
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright © The Internet Society (2006).
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to control different switching technologies as well as different applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections including Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document provides an evaluation of the IETF Routing Protocols against the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T.
1. Introduction
Certain capabilities are needed to support the ITU-T Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane architecture as defined in [G.8080].
[RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS routing suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1]. The ASON routing architecture provides for a conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional components and common information elements to enable end-to-end routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and to facilitate management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
However, [RFC4258] does not address GMPLS routing protocol applicability or capabilities. This document evaluates the IETF Routing Protocols against the requirements identified in [RFC4258]. The result of this evaluation is detailed in Section 5. Close examination of applicability scenarios and the result of the evaluation of these scenarios are provided in Section 6.
ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendices A and B.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology introduced in [RFC4258].
3. Contributors
This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing Solution design team's joint effort.
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel, Team Leader and Editor) EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com Chris Hopps (Cisco) EMail: email@example.com Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation) EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs) EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com Stephen Shew (Nortel Networks) EMail: email@example.com Dave Ward (Cisco) EMail: email@example.com
4. Requirements: Overview
The following functionality is expected from GMPLS routing protocols to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]):
- Routing Areas (RAs) shall be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network, each having a unique RA Identifier (RA ID) within the carrier's network.
- Within a RA (one level), the routing protocol shall support dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of hierarchical RA levels to be supported by a routing protocol is implementation specific.
- The routing protocol shall support routing information based on a common set of information elements as defined in [G.7715] and [G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and abstract nodes (each representing either a sub-network or simply a node). [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing information is represented and exchanged will vary with the routing protocol used.
- The routing protocol shall converge such that the distributed Routing DataBases (RDB) become synchronized after a period of time.
To support dissemination of hierarchical routing information, the routing protocol must deliver:
- Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent levels of the hierarchy (i.e., Level N+1 and N), including reachability and (upon policy decision) summarized topology information.
- Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and forwarding of information from one Routing Controller (RC) to RC(s) at different levels when multiple RCs are bound to a single RA.
- A mechanism to prevent re-introduction of information propagated into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level RA's RC from which this information has been initially received.
Note: The number of hierarchical levels to be supported is routing protocol specific and reflects a containment relationship.
Reachability information may be advertised either as a set of UNI Transport Resource address prefixes, or as a set of associated Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP) link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and selected consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of the control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within a RA should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other RAs (child or parent).
As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice, either a co-located architecture or a physically separated architecture may be used. A collection of links and nodes, such as a sub-network or RA, must be able to represent itself to the wider network as a single logical entity with only its external links visible to the topology database.
5. Evaluation
This section evaluates support of existing IETF routing protocols with respect to the requirements summarized from [RFC4258] in Section 4. Candidate routing protocols are Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) (OSPF and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)) and BGP. The latter is not addressed in the current version of this document. BGP is not considered a candidate protocol mainly because of the following reasons:
- Non-support of TE information exchange. Each BGP router advertises only its path to each destination in its vector for loop avoidance, with no costs or hop counts; each BGP router knows little about network topology.
- BGP can only advertise routes that are eligible for use (local RIB) or routing loops can occur; there is one best route per prefix, and that is the route that is advertised.
- BGP is not widely deployed in optical equipment and networks.
5.1. Terminology and Identification
- Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
- Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a single data plane (abstract) node. The Li is identified by the TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier defined as follows:
[RFC3630]: Router_Address (top level) TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA [RFC3784]: Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (Type 134)
Note: This document does not define what the TE Router ID is. This document simply states the use of the TE Router ID to identify Li. [RFC3630] and [RFC3784] provide the definitions.
- Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology information that it generates and shares with other control plane "routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID
[RFC2328]: Router ID (32-bit) [RFC1195]: IS-IS System ID (48-bit)
The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the logical entities representing the data plane resources such as links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri. Note that, in the ASON context, an arrangement consisting of multiple Ris announcing routing information related to a single Li is under evaluation.
Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not assumed to be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri may have multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and Li is simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only one Ri at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or more Lis. Thus, the routing protocol MUST be able to advertise multiple TE Router IDs (see Section 5.7).
Note: Si is a control plane signaling function associated with one or more Lis. This document does not assume any specific constraint on the relationship between Si and Li. This document does not discuss issues of control plane accessibility for the signaling function, and it makes no assumptions about how control plane accessibility to the Si is achieved.
5.2. RA Identification
G.7715.1 notes some necessary characteristics for RA identifiers, e.g., that they may provide scope for the Ri, and that they must be provisioned to be unique within an administrative domain. The RA ID format itself is allowed to be derived from any global address space. Provisioning of RA IDs for uniqueness is outside the scope of this document.
Under these conditions, GMPLS link state routing protocols provide the capability for RA Identification without further modification.
5.3. Routing Information Exchange
In this section, the focus is on routing information exchange Ri entities (through routing adjacencies) within a single hierarchical level. Routing information mapping between levels require specific processing (see Section 5.5).
The control plane does not transport Pi identifiers, as these are data plane addresses for which the Li/Pi mapping is kept (link) local; see, for instance the transport LMP document [RFC4394] where such an exchange is described. Example: The transport plane identifier is the Pi (the identifier assigned to the physical element) that could be, for instance, "666B.F999.AF10.222C", whereas the control plane identifier is the Li (the identifier assigned by the control plane), which could be, for instance, "192.0.2.1".
The control plane exchanges the control plane identifier information, but not the transport plane identifier information (i.e., not "666B.F999.AF10.222C", but only "192.0.2.1"). The mapping Li/Pi is kept local. So, when the Si receives a control plane message requesting the use of "192.0.2.1", Si knows locally that this information refers to the data plane entity identified by the transport plane identifier "666B.F999.AF10.222C".
Note also that the Li and Pi addressing spaces may be identical.
The control plane carries:
- its view of the data plane link end-points and other link connection end-points.
- the identifiers scoped by the Lis, i.e., referred to as an associated IPv4/IPv6 addressing space. Note that these identifiers may be either bundled TE link addresses or component link addresses.
- when using OSPF or ISIS as the IGP in support of traffic engineering, [RFC3477] RECOMMENDS that the Li value (referred to the "LSR Router ID") be set to the TE Router ID value.
Therefore, OSPF and IS-IS carry sufficient node identification information without further modification.
5.3.1. Link Attributes
[RFC4258] provides a list of link attributes and characteristics that need to be advertised by a routing protocol. All TE link attributes and characteristics are currently handled by OSPF and IS-IS (see Table 1) with the exception of Local Adaptation support. Indeed, GMPLS routing does not currently consider the use of dedicated TE link attribute(s) to describe the cross/inter-layer relationships.
In addition, the representation of bandwidth requires further consideration. GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) that delivers information about the (maximum/ minimum) bandwidth per priority of which an LSP can make use. This information is usually used in combination with the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV that provides the amount of bandwidth not yet reserved on a TE link.
In the ASON context, other bandwidth accounting representations are possible, e.g., in terms of a set of tuples <signal_type; number of unallocated timeslots>. The latter representation may also require definition of additional signal types (from those defined in [RFC3946]) to represent support of contiguously concatenated signals, i.e., STS-(3xN)c SPE / VC-4-Nc, N = 4, 16, 64, 256.
However, the method proposed in [RFC4202] is the most straightforward without requiring any bandwidth accounting change from an LSR perspective (in particular, when the ISCD sub-TLV information is combined with the information provided by the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV).
Link Characteristics GMPLS OSPF ----------------------- ---------- Local SNPP link ID Link-local part of the TE link identifier sub-TLV [RFC4203] Remote SNPP link ID Link remote part of the TE link identifier sub-TLV [RFC4203] Signal Type Technology specific part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4203] Link Weight TE metric sub-TLV [RFC3630] Resource Class Administrative Group sub-TLV [RFC3630] Local Connection Types Switching Capability field part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4203] Link Capacity Unreserved bandwidth sub-TLV [RFC3630] Max LSP Bandwidth part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4203] Link Availability Link Protection sub-TLV [RFC4203] Diversity Support SRLG sub-TLV [RFC4203] Local Adaptation support See above
Table 1. TE link attributes in GMPLS OSPF-TE
Link Characteristics GMPLS IS-IS ----------------------- ----------- Local SNPP link ID Link-local part of the TE link identifier sub-TLV [RFC4205] Remote SNPP link ID Link-remote part of the TE link identifier sub-TLV [RFC4205] Signal Type Technology specific part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4205] Link Weight TE Default metric [RFC3784] Resource Class Administrative Group sub-TLV [RFC3784] Local Connection Types Switching Capability field part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4205] Link Capacity Unreserved bandwidth sub-TLV [RFC3784] Max LSP Bandwidth part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV [RFC4205] Link Availability Link Protection sub-TLV [RFC4205] Diversity Support SRLG sub-TLV [RFC4205] Local Adaptation support See above
Table 2. TE link attributes in GMPLS IS-IS-TE
Note: Link Attributes represent layer resource capabilities and their utilization i.e. the IGP should be able to advertise these attributes on a per-layer basis.
5.3.2. Node Attributes
Node attributes are the "Logical Node ID" (described in Section 5.1) and the reachability information described in Section 5.3.3.
5.3.3. Reachability Information
Advertisement of reachability can be achieved using the techniques described in [OSPF-NODE], where the set of local addresses are carried in an OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is defined per address family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6). However, [OSPF-NODE] is restricted to advertisement of Host addresses and not prefixes, and therefore it requires enhancement (see below). Thus, in order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a summarization mechanism is additionally required. This mechanism may take the form of a prefix length (which indicates the number of significant bits in the prefix) or a network mask.
A similar mechanism does not exist for IS-IS. Moreover, the Extended IP Reachability TLV [RFC3784] focuses on IP reachable end-points (terminating points), as its name indicates.
5.4. Routing Information Abstraction
G.7715.1 describes both static and dynamic methods for abstraction of routing information for advertisement at a different level of the routing hierarchy. However, the information that is advertised continues to be in the form of link and node advertisements consistent with the link state routing protocol used at that level. Hence, no specific capabilities need to be added to the routing protocol beyond the ability to locally identify when routing information originates outside of a particular RA.
The methods used for abstraction of routing information are outside the scope of GMPLS routing protocols.
5.5. Dissemination of Routing Information in Support of Multiple
Hierarchal Levels of RAs
G.7715.1 does not define specific mechanisms to support multiple hierarchical levels of RAs beyond the ability to support abstraction as discussed above. However, if RCs bound to adjacent levels of the RA hierarchy are allowed to redistribute routing information in both directions between adjacent levels of the hierarchy without any additional mechanisms, they would not be able to determine looping of routing information.
To prevent this looping of routing information between levels, IS-IS [RFC1195] allows only advertising routing information upward in the level hierarchy and disallows the advertising of routing information downward in the hierarchy. [RFC2966] defines the up/down bit to allow advertising downward in the hierarchy the "IP Internal Reachability Information" TLV (Type 128) and "IP External Reachability Information" TLV (Type 130). [RFC3784] extends its applicability for the "Extended IP Reachability" TLV (Type 135). Using this mechanism, the up/down bit is set to 0 when routing information is first injected into IS-IS. If routing information is advertised from a higher level to a lower level, the up/down bit is set to 1, indicating that it has traveled down the hierarchy. Routing information that has the up/down bit set to 1 may only be advertised down the hierarchy, i.e., to lower levels. This mechanism applies independently of the number of levels. However, this mechanism does not apply to the "Extended IS Reachability" TLV (Type 22) used to propagate the summarized topology (see Section 5.3), traffic engineering information as listed in Table 1, as well as reachability information (see Section 5.3.3).
OSPFv2 [RFC2328] prevents inter-area routes (which are learned from area 0) from being passed back to area 0. However, GMPLS makes use of Type 10 (area-local scope) LSAs to propagate TE information [RFC3630], [RFC4202]. Type 10 Opaque LSAs are not flooded beyond the borders of their associated area. It is therefore necessary to have a means by which Type 10 Opaque LSA may carry the information that a particular piece of routing information has been learned from a higher-level RC when propagated to a lower-level RC. Any downward RC from this level, which receives an LSA with this information would omit the information in this LSA and thus not re-introduce this information back into a higher-level RC.
5.6. Routing Protocol Convergence
Link state protocols have been designed to propagate detected topological changes (such as interface failures and link attributes modification). The convergence period is short and involves a minimum of routing information exchange.
Therefore, existing routing protocol convergence involves mechanisms that are sufficient for ASON applications.
5.7. Routing Information Scoping
The routing protocol MUST support a single Ri advertising on behalf of more than one Li. Since each Li is identified by a unique TE Router ID, the routing protocol MUST be able to advertise multiple TE Router IDs. That is, for [RFC3630], multiple Router Addresses and for [RFC3784] multiple Traffic Engineering Router Ids.
The Link sub-TLV that is currently part of the top level Link TLV associates the link to the Router_ID. However, having the Ri advertising on behalf of multiple Lis creates the following issue, as there is no longer a 1:1 relationship between the Router_ID and the TE Router_ID, but a 1:N relationship is possible (see Section 5.1). As the link-local and link-remote (unnumbered) ID association may not be unique per abstract node (per Li unicity), the advertisement needs to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the initial discovery process to retrieve the {Li;Lj} relationship(s). In brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases, the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated with the correct TE Router ID.
Moreover, when the Ri advertises on behalf multiple Lis, the routing protocol MUST be able to disambiguate the advertised reachability information (see Section 5.3.3) so that it can be associated with the correct TE Router ID.
6. Evaluation Scenarios
The evaluation scenarios are the following; they are respectively referred to as cases 1, 2, 3, and 4.
In Figure 1, below,
- R3 represents an LSR with all components collocated.
- R2 shows how the "router" component may be disjoint from the node. - R1 shows how a single "router" may manage multiple nodes.------------------- ------- |R1 | |R2 | | | | | ------ | L1 L2 L3 | | L4 | |R3 | | : : : | | : | | | | : : : | | : | | L5 | Control ---+-----+-----+--- ---+--- | : | Plane : : : : | : | ----------------+-----+-----+-----------+-------+---+--+- Data : : : : | : | Plane -- : -- -- | -- | ----|P1|--------|P3|--------|P4|------+-|P5|-+- -- \ : / -- -- | -- | \ -- / | | |P2| ------ --
Figure 1. Evaluation Cases 1, 2, and 3
Case 1 as represented refers either to direct links between edges or to "logical links" as shown in Figure 2 (or any combination of them).
------ ------ | | | | | L1 | | L2 | | : | | : | | : R1| | : R2| Control Plane --+--- --+--- Elements : : ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------ Data Plane : : Elements : : ----+-----------------------------+----- | : : | | --- --- --- | | | |----------| P |----------| | | ---+--| | --- | |---+--- | | | | | | | | P1|-------------------------| P2| | | --- --- | ----------------------------------------
Figure 2. Case 1 with Logical Links
Another case (referred to as Case 4) is constituted by the Abstract Node as represented in Figure 3. There is no internal structure associated (externally) to the abstract node.
-------------- |R4 | | | | L6 | | : | | ...... | ---:------:--- Control Plane : : +------+------+------+ Data Plane : : ---:------:--- |P8 : : | | -- -- | --+-|P |----|P |-+-- | -- -- | --------------
Figure 3. Case 4: Abstract Node
Note: the "signaling function" referred to as Si, i.e., the control plane entity that processes the signaling messages, is not represented in these figures.
7. Summary of Necessary Additions to OSPF and IS-IS
The following sections summarize the additions to be provided to OSPF and IS-IS in support of ASON routing.
7.1. OSPFv2
Reachability Extend Node Attribute sub-TLVs to support address prefixes (see Section 5.3.3). Link Attributes Representation of cross/inter-layer relationships in link top-level link TLV (see Section 5.3.1). Optionally, provide for per-signal-type bandwidth accounting (see Section 5.3.1). Scoping TE link advertisements to allow for retrieving their respective local-remote TE Router_ID relationship(s) (see Section 5.7).
Prefixes part of the reachability advertisement (using Node Attribute top-level TLV) needs to be associated to its respective local TE Router_ID (see Section 5.7).
Hierarchy Provide a mechanism by which Type 10 Opaque LSA may carry the information that a particular piece of routing information has been learned from a higher-level RC when propagated to a lower-level RC (so as not to re-introduce this information into a higher-level RC).
Reachability Provide for reachability advertisement (in the form of reachable TE prefixes). Link Attributes Representation of cross/inter-layer relationships in Extended IS Reachability TLV (see Section 5.3.1). Optionally, provide for per-signal-type bandwidth accounting (see Section 5.3.1). Scoping Extended IS Reachability TLVs to allow for retrieving their respective local-remote TE Router_ID relationship(s) (see Section 5.7).
Prefixes part of the reachability advertisement needs to be associated to its respective local TE Router_ID (see Section 5.7).
Hierarchy Extend the up/down bit mechanisms to propagate the summarized topology (see Section 5.3) and traffic engineering information as listed in Table 1, as well as reachability information (see Section 5.3.3).
8. Security Considerations
The introduction of a dynamic control plane to an ASON network exposes it to additional security risks that may have been controlled or limited by the use of management plane solutions. The routing protocols play a part in the control plane and may be attacked so that they become unstable or provide incorrect information for use in path computation or by the signaling protocols.
Nevertheless, there is no reason why the control plane components cannot be secured, and the security mechanisms developed for the routing protocol and used within the Internet are equally applicable within an ASON context.
[RFC4258] describes the requirements for security of routing protocols for the Automatically Switched Optical Network. Reference is made to [M.3016], which lays out the overall security objectives of confidentiality, integrity, and accountability. These are well discussed for the Internet routing protocols in [THREATS].
A detailed discussion of routing threats and mechanisms that are currently deployed in operational networks to counter these threats is found in [OPSECPRACTICES]. A detailed listing of the device capabilities that can be used to support these practices can be found in [RFC3871].
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for having initiated the proposal of an ASON Routing Solution Design Team and the ITU-T SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. [RFC2966] Li, T., Przygienda, T., and H. Smit, "Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 2966, October 2000. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. [RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004. [RFC3871] Jones, G., Ed., "Operational Security Requirements for Large Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure", RFC 3871, September 2004. [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 2004. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005. [RFC4258] Brungard, D., "Requirements for Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC 4258, November 2005.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4394] Fedyk, D., Aboul-Magd, O., Brungard, D., Lang, J., and D. Papadimitriou, "A Transport Network View of the Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4394, February 2006. [OPSECPRACTICES] Kaeo, M., "Operational Security Current Practices", Work in Progress, July 2006. [OSPF-NODE] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", Work in Progress, June 2006. [THREATS] Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, October 2006. For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see http://www.itu.int [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", June 2002. [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols", November 2003. [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", June 2006. [M.3016] ITU-T Rec. M.3016.0, "Security for the Management Plane: Overview", May 2005.
Appendix A. ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain (see Recommendation G.805): For the purposes of [G.7715.1], an administrative domain represents the extent of resources that belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players do not overlap amongst themselves.
Control plane: Performs the call control and connection control functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases connections and may restore a connection in case of a failure.
(Control) Domain: Represents a collection of (control) entities that are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within an administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity that hides the details of the RC distribution.
External NNI (E-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol controllers between control domains.
Internal NNI (I-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol controllers within control domains.
Link (see Recommendation G.805): A "topological component" that describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not limited to being provided by a single server trail.
Management plane: Performs management functions for the Transport Plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also provides coordination between all the planes. The following management functional areas are performed in the management plane: performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security management
Management domain (see Recommendation G.805): A management domain defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet organizational requirements according to geography, technology, policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such as fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and security (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, contained, or overlapping. As such, the resources within an administrative domain can be distributed into several possible overlapping management domains.
The same resource can therefore belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink function.
Transport plane: Provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer of user information, from one location to another. It can also provide transfer of some control and network management information. The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport Network defined in G.805 Recommendation.
User Network Interface (UNI): Interfaces are located between protocol controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: There is no routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): An RA represents a partition of the data plane, and its identifier is used within the control plane as the representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined by a set of sub-networks, the links that interconnect them, and the interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. An RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The limit of subdivision results in an RA that contains two sub-networks interconnected by a single link.
Routing Database (RDB): Repository for the local topology, network topology, reachability, and other routing information that is updated as part of the routing information exchange and that may additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may contain routing information for more than one Routing Area (RA).
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These functions can be classified as being protocol independent (Link Resource Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific (Protocol Controller or PC).
Routing Controller (RC): Handles (abstract) information needed for routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB. The RC is protocol independent.
Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs accessing the RDB may share the routing information.
Link Resource Manager (LRM): Supplies all the relevant component and TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): Handles protocol-specific message exchanges according to the reference point over which the information is exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI) and internal exchanges with the RC. The PC function is protocol dependent.
Authors' Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ed. Alcatel Francis Wellensplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 2408491 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Lyndon Ong
Ciena Corporation
PO Box 308
Cupertino, CA 95015 , USA
Phone: +1 408 705 2978
EMail: email@example.com Sadler Tellabs 1415 W. Diehl Rd Naperville, IL 60563 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Stephen Shew
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K2H 8E9
Phone: +1 613 7632462
EMail: email@example.com Ward Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA Phone: +1-408-526-4000 EMail: email@example.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).


text:
OOH my March Card Kit from Simon says stamp has arrived!! Woo hoo!! and it if full of Easter/Spring goodness :-)
These kits sold out very quickly but you can still order the individual items. I would always recommend subscribing for the kit to avoid disappointment + you get a $5 discount!! ;-)
I am a big fan of all things 'Nuvo' the products so pretty and in this kit there are 3 tubs of yummy shimmery mousse. I used the gorgeous Pink Peony one and the egg stencil for the background :-)
I coloured the cute little chick with copics and rounded her a little with an embossing tool.
I also made a little treat bag, of course I had to go shopping specifically to get some mini eggs to pop inside. The whole bag wouldn't fit, so I had to eat a few, well you do don't you, but then I forgot that I would need a couple of extras for the photo staging so I had to open the 2nd bag that I had bought!! The things we do for crafting eh ;-)
Thanks for looking! :-)
Challenges:Crafty Cardmaker. Add Some Texture
Make My Monday. Birds (and thanks for choosing my card to be in the top 3 last week ;-)) XX
My Time To Craft. Anything But A Card
Send A Smile 4 Kids Easter/Spring
Die Cuttin Divas Animals
Hope you all have a great week :-)
Happy Crafting
Luv Lols x x x

subset: commoncrawl


text:
CSS Albemarle sunk off Plymouth, N.C.
The CSS Albemarle sunk off Plymouth, North Carolina, circa 1865. She had been sunk on 27-28 October 1864 by a torpedo boat. One section of her armored casemate has been displaced. The photograph was taken from the wharf at Plymouth, with the swamp and woods opposite the town in the background.
Public Domain
Public Domain is a copyright term that is often used when talking about copyright for creative works. Under U.S. copyright law, individual items that are in the public domain are items that are no longer protected by copyright law. This means that you do not need to request permission to re-use, re-publish or even change a copy of the item. Items enter the public domain under U.S. copyright law for a number of reasons: the original copyright may have expired; the item was created by the U.S. Federal Government or other governmental entity that views the things it creates as in the public domain; the work was never protected by copyright for some other reason related to how it was produced (for example, it was a speech that wasn't written down or recorded); or the work doesn't have enough originality to make it eligible for copyright protection.


text:
Top Shelf Home w/ Deck ~1 Mi to Ski Slopes!
About the property
With a stay at this cottage in McGaheysville, you'll be near ski lifts, within a 15-minute drive of Massanutten Water Park and Masanutten Ski Resort. This cottage is 12.4 mi (19.9 km) from James Madison University and 12.8 mi (20.6 km) from Shenandoah National Park.
Take advantage of recreation opportunities such as an outdoor pool, or other amenities including complimentary wireless internet access and barbecue grills.
Popular amenities
Free WiFi
Additional check-in information
- Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy
- Government-issued photo identification and a credit card, debit card, or cash deposit may be required at check-in for incidental charges
- Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges; special requests cannot be guaranteed
- This property accepts credit cards; cash is not accepted
- Host has not indicated whether there is a carbon monoxide detector on the property; consider bringing a portable detector with you on the trip
- Host has not indicated whether there is a smoke detector on the property
- Contactless check-in and contactless check-out are available.
Important information
traveler_service charges
Your credit card statement will show two separate charges. The booking amount and property fees charged by EvolveVacationRental, and the service fee charged by Expedia partner HomeAway.com, Inc.. The service fee is refundable only when your entire booking is fully refundable. Please refer to HomeAway's terms and conditions for the rules applicable to the booking facilitation services provided.


text:
After hearing through the grapevine that Ricki Lake was a huge PS22 Chorus fan, we decided to show her some support in turn on her latest endeavor as a Dancing With The Stars contestant! Her DWTS dance partner, Derek Hough, had started a theme song for their team, which Ricki tweeted last week, and at Friday's rehearsal, we decided to give them some help and finish it up for them.
Definitely a fun way to start off the year...
FILMED BY: Ms. Lisa
EDITED BY: Mr. B
UPDATE: Thrilled to see that both Ricki and Derek tweeted (and retweeted respectively) some great responses to the 2012 kids' video debut!! We really appreciate them taking the time to send their love and gratitude on what we're sure must be an incredibly busy day for them with Dancing With The Stars debuting tonight! Check out the tweets below!


text:
You can download pdf-copies of early brochures from 84 Wind Turbine Companies World Wide, as well as high resolution images of many Turbines.
An explosive growth in turbine size and efficiency, created by a daring wind power industry, helped by visionary and responsible politicians and investors all over the world, made it happen.
(Illustration courtesy of DONG)
In 2014 roughly 40% of Denmark's electricity demand was produced by Wind Turbines on land and offshore. This was made possible by the cooperation between a visionary Energy Industry and farsighted Scandinavian politicians. Strong power cable connections between the Countries in Northern Europe is a necessary condition for this high wind power penetration. As the winds blow strong over Denmark, the Hydropower plants in Sweden and Norway can reduce their production for a while, and spare the accumulated water for times of low winds.
Watch the power mix in the Danish Electricity grid: Download the APP for Smartphone or Tablet: "Energisystemet lige nu" from Energinet.dk
As the world gathered at the COP 15 Climate Conference in Copenhagen December 2009 we did hope for political action, but politicians failed to deliver.
For encouragement, learn the lessons from the birth of the Danish Wind Industry in the last century.
At the time Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg preached, that we should postpone all investments in renewable energy,
until intense central research had developed smarter and cheaper renewable technologies.
But this was all tried in the USA and Germany around 1980 with fatal results. Early research Turbines that were designed and built by clever aerospace engineers
at Boeing, Kaman, Westinghouse and M.A.N. were all severe failures. None of these "smart" designs made it to the market place!
In Denmark and Germany small companies began developing small Turbines, hand in hand with a "baby market" which was initially subsidized by visionary politicians
in the two countries. The competition in this early market made the best Turbines survive.
This is the real background for Vestas, Enercon, Siemens Wind Power and more. See the slideshow below, and visit the Turbine pages above.
Poul la Cour 1846 - 1908
Johannes Juul 1887 - 1969
The information presented on this web site is gathered in an ongoing process, and represent our best knowledge. We can not guarantee, that all informations are correct, and take no responsibility for any commercial loss arising from the use of our data or the information presented.
The information and set up of this web site is the sole property of Nordisk AeroForm ApS and Erik Grove-Nielsen. Text and photos may be downloaded for personal use, but may not be used in public, neither in printing, electronically or on web sites.
The History of Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the History of Siemens Wind Power A/S, the History of Nordtank A/S, the History of NEG-Micon A/S, the History of Bonus Energy A/S, the History of AeroStar and the History of Enercon GmbH. The History of modern Wind Turbines.
copyright © 2006-2024 Nordisk AeroForm ApS


text:
GIL .. BIOSCI/Bionet News .. Biosequences .. Software .. FTP |
Water Microbiology in the 21st Century. September 21st and 22nd 1993. Macquarie University Sydney Australia Description of Program Water Microbiology is no longer simply the counting of coliforms. The emergence of a new range of waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia and Small Round Viruses are making Water Microbiology ever more challenging. New methodologies to detect these organisms, which range from PCR to flow cytometry, are becoming available. This workshop will discuss the epidemiology of these emerging pathogens; describe the new methodologies available to detect environmental pathogens and develop risk assessment models to assess the significance of the water borne route of transmission to infection rates in the community. In the two day course 'hands on' experience in the latest techniques to detect specific pathogens and indicator organisms in environmental samples will be provided. The techniques demonstrated will include PCR, Gene Probing and Flow Cytometry together with sample preparation methods. The course will be presented by leading international experts from the US, UK and Australia. One Day Program - 21 September 1993. Designed for water industry management and regulatory authorities. Topics will include: Water borne diseases and Epidemiology. An Introduction to the New Methodology, Risk Assessment, Laboratory Accreditation, Rapid Detection Methods (including PCR, Gene Probes and Flow Cytometry for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, bacteria and viruses,). Two Day Program - 21 and 22 September 1993. Designed for scientific staff working in the water industry. Topics will include: Hands on demonstrations of Rapid Detection Methods (Including Flow Cytometry, PCR, Gene Probes, for protozoa, bacteria and viruses ), Waterborne Diseases and Epidemiology, An introduction to Risk Assessment. Presenters Assoc. Prof. Joan Rose, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA - Responsible for pioneering research on the application of risk assesment to water microbiology. Dr. Colin Fricker, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Reading, UK - Head of Thames Water microbiology group Prof. Charles Gerba, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA - The world authority on water virology. Assoc. Prof. Jerry Ongerth, University of Washington, Seatle, USA - Expert on the epidemiology of the waterborne protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Dr. Morteza Abbaszadegan, American Water Works Service Company Inc., Illinois, USA - Responsible for pioneering research on the use of PCR for the detection of pathogens in water. Dr. Nick Ashbolt, Australian Water Technologies, Water Board, Sydney - Head of water microbiology projects. Liz Fricker, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Reading, UK - responsible for research in the development of rapid detection methods for bacterial indicators. Dr Gary Grohmann, Australian Water Technologies, Water Board, Sydney - Australia's Authority on water virology. Graham Vesey, Macquarie University - Responsible for pioneering research in the development of flow cytometric detection methods for waterborne pathogens. For further information contact:- Macquarie University, Continuing Education Program (02) 805 7470 or Fax (02) 805-7480, Sydney, NSW 2109 or Dr. Duncan Veal, School of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109. (02) 805 8185 or FAX (02) 805 8245 E-mail dveal at ocs1.ocs.mq.edu.au Please feel free to pass on details of this workshop to any of your colleges whom you think would be interested. Is any one aware of a suitable file server for promotion of this workshop? If so could they contact Dr. Duncan Veal at the above address.


text:
Residential Charging
So, You Need an EV Charger
If you are looking for electric vehicle charging for your home, then this is everything you need to know. Owning an EV can be overwhelming at first and picking a charger for that EV just adds to it. A home charger is very important, and you want to be able to distinguish between a good and a bad charger. 80% of charging is done at home. It is essential to the EV ownership experience.
Any investment in the world of electric vehicles is an investment in the future. As the EV's advance, so do the chargers. And as they become more popular, more opportunities exist to save money.
EV Chargers and How They Work
EV home charging stations are essential for the EV owner; there is no way around it. People prefer charging at home. It provides peace of mind. The range anxiety is less of an issue when you know you have charging set up at home. It allows for:
- Convenience – You may charge your electric vehicle whenever you desire to ensure it has a full battery when you leave home.
- Cost Efficiency – You don't have to buy electricity from a third party.
- Time Savings – You don't have to wait at commercial charging stations.
- Safety – You're in the safety of your own home as opposed to being a sitting duck at a charging station.
In North America, the standard plug for everyone except Tesla is the SAE J1772, so most if not all chargers will have this kind of plug. If you drive a Tesla, the adapter is provided. This is to say that you do not have to worry about getting the "wrong one."
When purchasing an EV charger, think about the future. You want to be able to keep your EV charger for at least 3 years. Every year, EVs are more capable than the year before. So, spending to get more and to be viable in the future is valuable. Cheapest is never the best when it comes to buying an EV charging station. Investing in a high-quality charging station is the best way to prepare for the future and make your investment worthwhile.
Level 1 or Level 2?
You must find the charger that fits your needs. There are two kinds of at home chargers in North America, Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 Chargers tend to add about 1-3 miles of range per hour. They are the base level charger and won't provide a lot of speed but are good for plug-in hybrids. Level 2 chargers increase the rate to a range of between 12 and 30 miles per hour. That's about 10 times faster than a Level 1, which is a game changer.
However, one reason this varies so much is because each car handles how much electricity it can take at a time differently. The EV is in control of how much electricity is being taken in by the battery and inverter. A charging station that delivers more power than your EV can take will still not damage your vehicle. That is why many choose to use EV stations that provide more power than their current EV can handle. They are prepared for future vehicles that can handle this speed of charging.
Something you must consider when looking to buy one is your home's electricity capacity and layout. Level 1 chargers can use a standard 110v outlet. However, level 2 needs a 240v outlet, like what you would use for your electric dryer, dishwasher or oven. Oftentimes you have to hire an electrician to set that up in your home's electrical system (for solutions that don't require an electrician, click here).
EV chargers can come in either hardwired or plug-in versions. We don't recommend chargers that require hardwiring generally because there are more advantages to plug in ones, such as movement, cost, and the flexibility. Make sure before buying you know your electric supply panel has enough spare capacity for something like a Level 2 charger. A Level 2 charger will also need a different electric outlet - such as a NEMA 14-50 or NEMA 10-50.
What Makes a Good at Home EV Charger?
That's a broad question. The truth is a lot of things matter. Cost, brand, design, output, and a lot more. It is up to you what makes a good charger for you. We want to equip you with the knowledge to make that decision.
There are a lot of different chargers out there with each their own qualities. Some important characteristics to look at are…
- Smart vs Dumb Chargers - This is probably the most important differentiator in home charging
- Cost
- Safety
- Power Output
- Design
- Futureproof
Smart vs Dumb Chargers
There are smart and "dumb" chargers. Dumb chargers charge your car, that's it, and if that's all you need, that's perfect. But smart chargers can play a much bigger role. They can do so much that there isn't one simple definition. Each smart charger is different. There are even smart chargers, kinda smart chargers, and really smart chargers. But the key aspect of chargers is the ease and convenience that come with them. Some capabilities of top of the line smart chargers, such as the EnelX Juicebox…
- Will allow you to see exactly how much energy your car is using
- It connects with Wi-Fi
- It allows you to review statistics from past charging sessions
- It can connect with Amazon Alexa or Google home ("Hey, Alexa, is my car charging right now?")
- Provides an app that connects to your charger
- You can manipulate your charging sessions through an app as well as sending you notifications ("You're not plugged in!")
There is still more to list off but those are some highlights. One thing you can do with smart chargers is set up a schedule. Let's say you get home, plug in your car, but at 10pm the rates are lower than at 5pm, so you set the schedule to begin charging at 10pm. It is an effective and useful tool to save money and time. Similarly, Utility Demand Response Programs or Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) is a newer feature which ultimately helps to provide favorable rates for the customer by making a deal with your electric provider. This isn't huge right now, but in the future, this will be a great advantage for EV owners and a great way to save money.
Now, some smart chargers can power share. If you own multiple EVs - this will make your life easier. Essentially, two chargers can communicate and intelligently split power and work together to save you money and charge your cars efficiently.
There is so much you can do with a smart charger, and as the market progresses, things like OCPP are going to be even more valuable. Smart chargers are all about making life easier and making EV ownership smoother for you. If this data and control is attractive to you, then we recommend spending a little more money for a great smart charging station as we believe it really revolutionizes the charging experience.
TAKEAWAY: At the end of day, they all charge your car, but we recommend smart chargers for the long list of features and power it gives the customer.
There are also some other areas that are important to consider. First let's look at the cost, which ranges from $400 to $1200. $700 is a good average as anything under $500 is not providing you much outside of charging and anything over $1000 is probably more expensive than it needs to be. Smart chargers tend to be in the $700 range, which is reasonable for the functions it provides. You should not pay over $500 for a dumb charger.
TAKEWAY: Top of the line Smart Chargers should be in the $700 range and no more than $500 range for dumb chargers.
Next, you want your charger to be safe, preferably safety certified (top brands generally are) but another important part is the warranty. If a brand does not put at least a 12-month warranty on the product, it means that that company doesn't stand behind their product. They don't back it. That device is putting high amounts of electricity out for many hours, you need to be able to trust its safety. A good warranty is around 3 years. That 3yr warranty means that the company believes in its product. There is a lot of electricity and a lot of money on the line, make sure your home charging station is built to handle it.
TAKEAWAY: There are a lot of expensive parts at play so make sure you can trust what you have.
Power Output
Another crucial point for home charging is the amperage rating or power. There are many different amp outputs available, from 16-amps to 80-amps, however, most range from 30 to 50 amps. The lowest amperage rating we recommend is 32-amps, because it will charge even cars that can only take 16-amps. The issue is that 32-amps is the slowest charging, and it is becoming more out of date as batteries progress. 40-amps seems to be the safe bet when taking account of the future; more and more EVs can handle higher amps at a time. However, as batteries get better, which they do every year, we will start seeing more EVs capable of taking 48-amp charging or more, which is a big deal, and really is where the industry is trending. Long term, larger output chargers is not a bad path to go. 32-amp is becoming more and more obsolete as time passes, but it still has its place for plug-in hybrids and certain EVs that can't handle high amounts of power. In addition to voltage, each charger has a specific amperage rating, or a few selectable amp settings.
Generally, a higher amperage will charge a battery faster. However, small batteries won't take as many amps as large ones. The Chevy Volt is limited to about 15 charging amps, while a Tesla Model S can take 80 on a 240-volt line with their battery. The Tesla will charge much faster on an 80-amp circuit than a 15-amp one, but the Chevy will take just as long with either. Make sure you know how much your car's recommended energy specs are so that you can make the most efficient choice.
TAKEAWAY: 40 to 48-amp chargers are both efficient and futureproof.
Let's be honest, you don't want an ugly charger taking up space in your garage. Luckily, most at home chargers are not an eyesore. So, this is not about aesthetic design but practical design. Seduction by aesthetic design can be a dangerous thing that influences your decision making for EV home charging stations.
Cable length: you want something around 20ft. Less than that is often too short and around 25ft is ideal. For example, the Tesla Gen 3 charger comes with an 18ft cable which can be too short (we don't recommend this charger unless you have a Tesla).
Material: You want the cable to be pliable, bendable, and not rigid; many cables struggle in cold weather when keeping that pliability and can be a hassle. The construction of the body needs to be sturdy and have high quality materials that you can trust will last you. Most are made out of a stiff, solid plastic.
Weatherproof and Durability: You should look for a NEMA 3 rating at least. That just means that your charging system can handle the elements. NEMA 4 rating is best and means that your system should be able to handle something like a hurricane or large snowstorms, which is excellent if you live near extreme weather. But both ratings are acceptable for keeping your EV charger outside.
Connector and Holster: Generally, a charging station that provides a built-in or remote holster (integrated) for the plug is good because it protects the plug from the elements or dirt while it's not charging. Other stations don't have a holster to protect your plug when not charging, which just leaves it hanging and unprotected. Remote or built-in holsters are what we recommend, and between the two just depends on how you personally want your charging set up at home.
TAKEWAY: You want it to look good, but more importantly, you want it to work good.
The moral of the story is that you don't want to buy a charger and have it be obsolete a year later. Because this industry is always advancing, it is important not to be left behind. So, then, what makes a charger futureproof? Two things. The power output and its smart charging abilities.
- Power Output - in a couple years, EVs will be able to take more and more power (50-amp+). A 32-amp won't cut it anymore.
- Smart Charging - This allows for your charger to "evolve" with time. Updates over the air, and power sharing for multiple EVs. If you want to be prepared, you own a smart charger.
TAKEAWAY: You do not want to invest in something that will become obsolete. Invest in the future.
Last Things to Consider
- Are you in control of your electricity supply? If you own your home, then there isn't an issue. But if you are in a condominium, an apartment, or have a landlord, you will need to get permission which can be difficult.
- Do you have the available electrical capacity that allows you to have a circuit for your home charging station? If you're not entirely sure, contact an electrician to sort it out and do the required upgrades otherwise.
- Make sure you know where you want your home charging station installed. You don't want to make a mistake with installation where the cable can't reach your car or there is no outlet available. Plan for where you want your charging station.
Now that we have covered all this information, Let's look at the products that we recommend.
Top Recommendations
Blink HQ 150
Wallbox Pulsar Plus
EnelX Juicebox
The market has a lot of great chargers, but not all chargers are created equal. Chargers like the Chargepoint Home Flex, Grizzl-E Classic, ClipperCreek HCS-40P, and others will all get the job done. But to us, these 3 are the standouts.
The Pulsar Plus from Wallbox
We call it "The Really Smart Charger"
This is top of the line. Everything you need or want in an at home charger is in this product. Even more exciting, even more options will be available with this device in the near future. Wallbox went out and tried to check off every box with this charger, and they succeeded.
Who do we recommend this charger to?
This charger is for data geeks - The people who want to know everything about their EV and charging. It is also for people who want to be ready for the future. It is "The Really Smart Charger" after all. The people who are willing to spend a little more to get a lot out of it. There is not a lot of negatives with this charger. So if this is you, this product is your guy.
Or if you just want a top-of-the-line charger, you can't go wrong with the Pulsar Plus.
Stand Out Features
- OTA (Over the Air) Software updates – It can be improved from a distance!
- Wifi and Bluetooth – Bluetooth is pretty rare and allows for even more flexibility.
- Wallbox App - User friendly and it shows statistics, kW hours used - and how much each charging session cost you!
- Provides visual communication – Each halo color communicates something (Red – Error mode, Yellow – Lock mode (no one can use it), Blinking solid blue – Charging).
- Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) – In the future, this will be a big deal and save EV owners even more money.
- Cold Weather Performance – In cold weather climates like in the Northern states or Canada, you can run into some difficulty.
- The cable is not as pliable and can be a little clunky because of extreme cold temperatures. If you do not have a garage, you might want to consider a charger that withstands the cold temperature a little better.
- It is not energy star certified – However, Wallbox is working to get it to be.
- It does not have an integrated connector holster, which can be annoying.
- There is not a lot else negative you can say about it. It is an all around great charger and you will not be dissatisfied.
The Grades
NEMA 4 Rated – A (This will survive a hurricane)
Power Delivery – B (40 amp/ 10 kWh and adjustable power) delivery
Cable Length – A (25ft)
Warranty – A (3yrs)
Smart Charger - A+
Design – B+
Futureproof? – A+
Cold Weather – C+ (Not great but a garage would serve you well)
Material Quality – B (Excellent construction and great material)
Cost – B ($649.00)
The EnelX Juicebox
Another exceptional charger is the EnelX Juicebox. This is a high-quality charger. End of story. Its has been in a game a little longer (for smart chargers). Anyone would be very happy with a charger like this. One thing it has over its biggest competitor, the ChargePoint Home Flex, is that it will function without Wi-Fi as a dumb charger. Some will just stop charging if the Wi-Fi goes out.
This has great value and is a little cheaper than the Pulsar Plus. EnelX is a major company in the electric vehicle scene, so you can trust them. Unfortunately, they have a massive public charging grid in Europe, but not North America yet. EnelX is a company to watch for new products like the Juicebox.
So, let's look at some details here.
Stand out Features
- Energy Star Certified – This is something it has over its competitor the Pulsar Plus.
- It works without Wi-Fi – it functions just as well as a dumb charger.
- Very Easy to install and has the bonus of a key and lock that prevents it from being stolen.
- The power is adjustable within the app which can be very handy for EV users.
- Integrated Cable management system.
- This is a very smart charger, like the Pulsar Plus. It comes with many of the same smart features such as power sharing.
- This might have one of the worst cold weather cables out of the competition – Big problem in Minnesota, not a big problem in California.
- The most apt word for this 25ft cable is "cumbersome".
- The design of the connector holster isn't ideal – there isn't a lot of room for error when plugging it in. We would suggest EnelX redesign it in the future.
- Wi-Fi seems to be a little shaky in the set up – It can cause some frustration but is resolved quickly.
Who Do We Recommend this Charger for?
This is an great charger with only a few design errors (in our opinion). You can't go wrong with it. One thing I like about this charger is the physical lock with a key. If you live in an apartment your charger can be stolen, this provides extra security. It is similar to the Pulsar Plus, but backed by the big name EnelX and provides a little more security. If you are looking for that security, this is your brand.
The Grades
NEMA 4 Rated – A (Let's be honest guys, this will survive a hurricane)
Power delivery – B (40 amps/10 kWh and adjustable power delivery)
Cable Length – B+ (25 ft, but not a great cable)
Warranty – A (3yrs)
Smart Charger - A+
Design – B-
Futureproof? – A+
Cold Weather – C- (not ideal but if you have a garage, your good to go)
Material Quality – A- (Good, thick plastic, not metal, but a little clunky)
Cost – B ($649.00)
Blink HQ 150
"Bang for your Buck"
If your someone who is just looking to charge their car and don't want anything too fancy, maybe you have a plug-in hybrid, the Blink HQ 150 is perfect. It is one of the most affordable ways to charge your EV at home. It is a great bang for your buck with high quality, sleek design, and exceptional reliability. There is not a lot to dislike about this charger. But if you choose to go this route, you might be left behind, or worse – wish you had a little bit more power.
Stand Out Features
- Reliable and high quality
- The Blink fast-charging network is huge and the company offers promotions for it
- It has great value
- Operates well in cold temperatures
- It has a really sleek, great design
- Outstanding quality
- 32-amps is less than we like
- It is not a smart charger
- Not made for the future
- Only a 1 year warranty
- Not a good charger for Tesla Model 3, Rivian, or large EVs
Who Do We Recommend this for?
If all you need is something to charge your car, you don't want anything else than this one of best dumb chargers on the market. There is no app, internet connection, or Bluetooth connection for the Blink HQ 150, and while that means a few less features, the reality is it will charge your car reliably. It is simple and at great price point for consumers.
The Grades
NEMA 3 Rated – B (It isn't going to survive a hurricane)
Power Delivery – C (32 amp/7 kWh)
Cable Length – A (25ft)
Warranty – C (1yr)
Smart Charger - N/A
Design – A-
Futureproof? – C
Cold Weather – B- (It holds up pretty well in the cold)
Material Quality – A- (Blink has really solid, quality product in this area)
Cost – A- ($549.99)


text:
12inch Satin Globe - Globe Lighting - Handblown Frosted Glass Light - Ceiling Light Fixture - Model No. 7598
This Art Deco Semi-flush ceiling light features a shallow canopy mounting plate, decorative turned brass, and a 12inch delicate satin glass globe.
• Our Raw Brass finish features solid unfinished brass that is hand cleaned before leaving our shop. The brass will age and patina over time giving the finish a soft natural look.
Please wear gloves while installing all fixtures. Touching raw brass with bare hands will tarnish the brass.
• Sealed Brass - Solid brass that is lightly sealed with an anti-tarnish additive to prevent the brass from aging or developing a patina.
• Antique Brass - Made of solid brass that has been aged and lacquer sealed
• Black - Durable satin powder coated finish
• Brushed Nickel - Lightly brushed with a semi-satin finish
• Polished Nickel - Mirror like metallic finish with a warm feel
This lamp is UL listed and thoroughly tested before leaving our shop!
Recommended Bulb:
LED A19 Bulb
Bulbs for your light can be purchased in our Bulbs section
Height: 15"
Width: 12"
Depth: 12"
Satin Glass Globe: 12"
5" Ceiling Canopy
This light fixture is compatible with a dimmer switch.
Socket: Standard Medium Base (e26/e27)
On/off type: Controlled from light switch
Installation: Direct Wired into Ceiling (Installation Hardware Included)
If you need to make this fixture adjustable for a sloped ceiling:
Please visit our Add-Ons for Fixtures section to customize your fixture.
This Light fixture is compatible with Incandescents, LEDs, Compact Fluorescent, or any other standard E26 base bulb up to 60 watts.
Please provide a physical address to qualify for free shipping. Due to package size, additional charges may apply for shipping to a P.O. Box.
Don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions!


text:
Archive for the tag "funny"
Funny The Office Quotes
I'm still in search of Season 1 of The Office. Can whoever is renting it from the Blockbuster on Pico please return it already!!! Until then, here are some funny quotes from the show: [During a "Diversity Day" exercise; Angela is wearing a sign on her forehead that says "Jamaican."] Kevin: Hey. Angela: Hey. Kevin: […]
Posted: 26 April, 2007 in Fun.
Tags: daily, funny, michael scott, quotes, the office
Comments: 3


text:
John Cornyn Open to Campaign Finance Reform
UPDATED: 10:35 p.m.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) has seen enough of the perils of outside influence on elections in his two terms as National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman that he's now taking an unusual position for a GOP leader: Congress should consider campaign finance reform next year.
"I think it would be a worthwhile exercise, not now – not 46 [or] 47 days before the election – but next year, to look at our campaign finance system in light of the Supreme Court decisions and say, 'What makes sense in terms of accountability and with concerns to transparency?' That I think would be important," Cornyn told Roll Call last week.
Being the chairman of the campaign arm for either Senate conference has never been a coveted role. But Cornyn's two turns at the top of the NRSC have featured a shift in power from a playing field dominated by party structures to one where every Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or Karl Rove with an overstuffed wallet can pursue their own campaign strategies on behalf of candidates chosen for ideological purity but not broader electability.
Because of that, GOP advantages in key states this cycle and in 2010 all but evaporated when primary winners skewed too far right or expressed views too far outside the mainstream.
That has put Cornyn in the unenviable spot of being the guy who could get blamed for the GOP's failure to win back the Senate majority, even if it isn't his fault.
It's rare for a Republican leader to express a "transparency" or "accountability"-based argument when it comes to campaign finance. And Cornyn by no means voiced support for the Democrats' DISCLOSE Act, which has failed multiple times to clear Congress and would force more disclosure from corporate-funded super PACs.
Cornyn expressed support for the right of groups to be engaged in the political process.
"The First Amendment is a fundamental value in this country, and the Supreme Court said as a constitutional matter, you can't suppress free speech. And we knew all along that McCain-Feingold carved out for organized labor and other groups, so it was really a lopsided deal in the first place," he said when asked if recent court decisions, such as Citizens United, which prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, have made the system worse.
Cornyn later clarified in a statement that his concern is primarily with how the political parties have been sidelined:"I believe we should strengthen the political parties, not limit free speech, and that starts with revisiting the federal fundraising restrictions and coordinated limits on both parties. Anyone who supports more campaign finance transparency should support a stronger political party system."
But any change to the current system at all, short of opening everything up to unlimited money, is likely to diverge from the views of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), one of the strongest opponents of campaign finance reform.
It's unclear whether that difference of opinion would affect Cornyn, who is the only candidate so far for the No. 2 Senate GOP leadership position. Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) is retiring at the end of the Congress, and Cornyn has been considered a shoo-in for the job, given his popularity in the Conference and the expectation of gains in November.
Traditionally, the NRSC and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairmen have enjoyed a significant amount of influence and a common trajectory to leadership if they maintain or win control of the Senate and use the Senators they helped elect to build a coalition of power within the Conference. But that model may be eroding, especially for the GOP.
The McCain-Feingold campaign law limited soft money to the parties, and a series of court decisions in the past few years has amplified the power of outside money. The result has been to legally constrain the party establishment while outside groups have freer rein.
"It certainly takes away some of the power of the NRSC not only [to] pick candidates but also to drive message," former NRSC Executive Director Scott Bensing said of the influx of outside groups.
Bensing noted that the "first evolution" of the NRSC happened in 2003, after McCain-Feingold passed. He said the campaign committee has become "a clearinghouse for best practices, specifically with online campaigns."
"It is more difficult to hold the Senate committee accountable for outcomes, for wins and losses, but I think there are still many ways to hold the committee accountable for how it spent its money, how it distributed its resources," Bensing said.
Cornyn himself said the "broken campaign finance system" has created a "cacophony" of political voices that sometimes drown out that of the NRSC.
It's a thesis that could be tested again soon if outside groups rush to the aid of Rep. Todd Akin, who has featured Cornyn's face in his own against-the-establishment fundraising pleas and whom the NRSC has vowed not to fund in his bid for Missouri's Senate seat.
After winning the primary to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), Akin lost favor after making controversial statements about rape and rape victims.
"It makes it impossible for the candidates or the political parties, for that matter, to control their message because you have so many different people – I mean, if you look at these campaigns, how many different groups are funding those races? And they can't coordinate with the candidates or the party," Cornyn said. "It's this cacophony of just noise. So I think there's a lot we could do to make this a lot simpler, if we would, but the whole idea of trying, in McCain-Feingold, to limit the flow of money into politics, has been an abject failure. The only thing that's happened is that it's become a lot less
Of course, none of this is to say that Cornyn's time at the NRSC has been a failure, or that it would be even if the GOP does not reclaim the Senate majority. Cornyn cut the fundraising gap between the NRSC and the DSCC from $70 million in 2008 to $12 million in 2010 and is on track to raise 20 percent more this cycle than he did last cycle.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a co-sponsor of the original landmark campaign finance bill, believes change won't happen until a scandal rocks the system.
"I think that the flood of money, because of the Citizens United case, has destroyed the whole political system as we know it so I think we have got to go back. There will be scandals and then there will be reform," McCain said. "That's the history of the United States of America. … Nothing is going to happen until the scandals take place."
Editors Note: The online version of this story has been updated from the print version.