Huub,
On 2011-09-30 20:19, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
> All,
>
> Section 1,1 also contains the text:
> [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically feasible that
> the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the
> requirements of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows
> for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested
> network."
>
> This is a quote from slide 113 in the PDF version of RFC5317 and should
> be read in realtion to the statement on slide 12 of the same RFC:
>
> "This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points
> and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of
> March and April, 2008
> This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical
> analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS
> architecture to meet those requirements"
>
> So the quoted text in the draft is one of the assumptions.
>
> The fact that there are currently *two* OAM mechanisms (and not a
> *single*), i.e. one for PW and one for LSP proves that the assumption
> was not correct.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. You seem to be saying that
the fact that two solutions have been designed proves that the assumption
that a single solution is possible was false. That doesn't follow at
all. The engineering profession has a long history of producing multiple
solutions where a single one was possible, and this seems to be just
another such case.
This isn't news. I quote from RFC 1958 (June 1996):
" 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless
there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same
protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
of course using this argument to reject improvements."
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf