Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Erminio,
even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far in your first generalization.
"Every generalization is wrong, including this one"

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, erminio.ottone_69@libero.it <erminio.ottone_69@libero.it> wrote:
The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so the
history definetely matters.

Quoting RFC5921:

  There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:

  1.  To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
      in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.

  2.  To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
      similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
      transport networks.

Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.

The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also uselesee
in case 2.

Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
>Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
>A: <erminio.ottone_69@libero.it>, <RCosta@ptinovacao.pt>, <ietf@ietf.org>,
"IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce@ietf.org>
>Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:       &lt;draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt&gt;
(Proactive      Connectivity    Verification,Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indicationfor   MPLS    Transport       Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>Erminio,
>I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
>Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
>behind.
>You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
>deployments.".  in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
>show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
>Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
>Best regards,
>Nurit
>
>P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard
>deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
>
>


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

[Index of Archives]     [IETF]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux Kernel]

  Powered by Linux