Francesco, Thanks for pointing out to me how poor my memory has become. For some reason I remembered 3, 30, and 300 per second, instead of 10, 100, and 300 per second. I rescind my first comment, but stand by my second one. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: Francesco Fondelli [mailto:francesco.fondelli@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 09:33 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: Rui Costa; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements (Requirementsfor OAM in MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard 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