Erminio Hi,
I belong to an Operator, I strongly agree
with Greg.
Regards
Medel
From:
mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011
10:50 AM
To: erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Announce;
ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
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@xxxxxxxxx <erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxx
>Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
>A: <erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx>,
<RCosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx>,
>Cc: <mpls@xxxxxxxx>
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] 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
>
>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?
>
>
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
|