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]

 



On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rui,

Hi all,

> While a co-author of the draft proposing re-use of Y.1731 OAM for MPLS-TP,
> and quite understanding the reasoning behind reusing existing formats,
> I am puzzled by two of your statements.
>
> First, that Y.1731 CCMs "would ease more vendor's implementations to
> converge to the 50ms protection timescale".
> One of the major problems with Y.1731 is the lack of a 100 packet per second
> rate, forcing the use of 300 packets per second at high resource cost.

hemm

--- T-REC-Y.1731-200802 ---
7.1.1 CCM (with ETH-CC information) Transmission
When ETH-CC is enabled, a MEP periodically transmits CCM frames as
often as the configured transmission period. Transmission period
can be one of the following seven values:
- 3.33ms: default transmission period for protection switching
  application (transmission rate of 300 frames/second)
- 10ms: (transmission rate is 100 frames/second)
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---

Even if I'm not a big fan of it I have to say that
100 pps is foressen by Y.1731 (and even by your ID,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-03, Section 4.1.1)

[cut]

> Y(J)S

Ciao
FF
_______________________________________________

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]