RE: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements (Requirementsfor OAM in MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard

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

 



SDH and EoSDH networks are widely used by Portugal Telecom Comunicacoes	
(PTC) and TMN (respectively the incumbent operator in Portugal and PT	
group's mobile operator), as well as foreign PT's clients (Brazilian "Vivo",	
for instance). These operators are used to both SDH and Ethernet's OAM	
paradigm. We ask you therefore to consider that MPLS-TP OAM protocols MUST	
allow equivalent OAM mechanisms.	

Being more precise, we would like to use the same protocol messages, to give/have	
the same "touch&feel" we had in SDH and for less time in ETH.	

In SDH...	
-it allows you at each end to check you have signal reception and notify the 
other end when you don't (RDI)	
-it does so at different levels (in SDH you can have it both for each VC and 
for the STM)	
-it has a means by which to exchange an APS protocol	

In ETH...	
-we've been using Y.1731 in EoSDH systems; it was the ITU standard developed 
for this purpose and was thought in the same principles stated for SDH; the 
most logical evolution would hence be to use the same PDUs and mechanisms as 
faithfully as possible with an adequate MPLS-TP encapsulation	
-MEF defined performance monitoring functions for frame loss measurement 
[FL], delay measurement, delay variation measurement, which are also addressed	
in Y.1731	

The main reason to use the same PDUs as in Y.1731 is probably the same i guess	
and respect	in RFC5654 2nd general requirements: economy. We can't though forget this	
requirement list will have impact on ITU standards and that, although much of	
the work in MPLS-TP is IETF's merit and sweat, probably no one would need it if ITU	
didn't start T-MPLS (whose interoperability problems with MPLS/IP were afterwards	
pointed out by IETF and originated all the work we can see now).	

I would also like to point out that the mechanisms in Y.1731 are sufficiently simple	
to allow some "hardwarization", which would ease more vendor's implementations to	
converge to the 50ms protection timescale, allowing a way to do this in	a cheaper,	
more scalable and miniaturized way.	

Thank You for your time. Best Regards,	
Rui Costa	

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]