Dear All,
I do not support either.
In section 3.5:
If two MPLS OAM protocols were to be deployed we would have to consider
three possible scenarios:
1) Isolation of the network into two incompatible and unconnected islands.
Two OAM solutions have been discussed for a long time in both ITU-T and
IETF.
Each solution has their own supporters inculding carriers and vendors.
So I don't think there is any interworking issue between two OAM solutions.
Carrier will select one OAM solution, A or B, in their network.
No need to select A and B at one network at the same time.
Respect their own selection and listen to their requirements, please.
Best regards,
Jian
Larry
<larryli888@ya
hoo.com.cn> 收件人
发件人: "adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
mpls-bounces@i <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mpls@xxxxxxxx"
etf.org <mpls@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx"
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>, D'Alessandro
Alessandro Gerardo
2011-10-05 <alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.
19:51 it>
抄送
主题
[mpls] 回复： R: FW: Last Call:
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerat
ions-01.txt> (The Reasons for
Selecting a Single Solution for
MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
Dear all,
So many multiple solution cases just show the way that the world and
technology works. Killing a solution roughly brings more damage to the
industry.
Section 3.6 discusses the elements of the choice of solutions. Current
application and deployment should be considered. In China Mobile, more than
330,000 PTN box are/will based on G.8113.1.
TDM PW gives a good example. G.8113.1 based OAM is relative simple and
mature and widely deployed and should be the standard.
Best regards,
Han Li
--- 11年10月5日，周三, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
<alessandro.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> 发件人: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
<alessandro.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 主题: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call:
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for
Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
> 收件人: "adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mpls@xxxxxxxx"
<mpls@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> 日期: 2011年10月5日,周三,下午5:38
> Dear all,
> I do not support.
>
> Basically I think it is superfluous dedicate an RFC to
> state it is better having one standard instead of two ones
> or many... for sure the lower are the variants the better is
> for the industry (one is the ideal).
>
> When two or more standards or de-facto standards exist it
> is because the problem they solve is not exactly the same,
> the way they solve the problem is optimized for different
> environments/boundary conditions (more efficient, more
> effective, etc). Therefore a single solution does not
> necessarily meet the different market requirements.
>
> It is fundamental to enter into the problem's details
> before making consideration about the best way to proceed
> (one solution, two solutions, multiple solutions) whilst the
> document clearly declares it does not want to make any
> technical evaluations.
>
> After more than three years of debates within the IETF and
> major unresolved technical concerns risen from some
> transport operators, the existence of this draft is by
> itself the sure sign that MPLS-TP OAM is a case where a
> single solution has not be found to meet all the different
> market requirements. Otherwise, why are we still discussing
> about it....?
>
> Therefore we must be realistic and the lessons learned from
> the past should guide our decisions: if a solution cannot be
> found for satisfying all the requirements it is better to
> have two standards and let the market decide how to exploit
> them. Are we really sure the cost(many) / benefit
> (none) analysis done in section 7.5 is realistic?
>
> Best regards,
> Alessandro
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Telecom Italia
> Alessandro D'Alessandro
> Transport Innovation
> Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
> phone: +39 011 228 5887
> mobile: +39 335 766 9607
> fax: +39 06 418 639 07
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
> Per conto di Adrian Farrel
> Inviato: lunedì 26 settembre 2011 23:58
> A: mpls@xxxxxxxx
> Oggetto: [mpls] FW: Last Call:
> <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>
> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP
> OAM) to Informational RFC
>
> MPLS Working Group,
>
> Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The
> document was presented for publication as an individual RFC
> with IETF consensus and AD sponsorship.
>
> This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you
> do, but after discussing with the chairs I came to the
> conclusion that it does not comment on the technical or
> process decisions of the MPLS working groups, and it does
> not attempt to make any technical evaluations or definitions
> within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is more of a
> philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the
> "two solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP
> OAM.
>
> Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather
> than running it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning
> is that the working group has got plenty to do working on
> technical issues without being diverted into wider IETF
> philosophy.
>
> As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF
> last call. That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to
> comment and express their views. Please send your comments
> to the IETF mailing list as described below, or (in
> exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ietf-announce-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of The IESG
> > Sent: 26 September 2011 20:43
> > To: IETF-Announce
> > Subject: Last Call:
> <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>
> > (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for
> MPLS-TP OAM) to
> > Informational RFC
> >
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from an individual
> submitter to
> > consider the following document:
> > - 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for
> MPLS-TP OAM'
> > <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>
> as an
> > Informational RFC
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
> weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive
> comments to the
> > ietf@xxxxxxxx
> mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may
> > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx
> instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated
> sorting.
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a
> profile of MPLS technology
> > for use in transport network deployments.
> That is, MPLS-TP is a set
> > of functions and features selected from
> the wider MPLS toolset and
> > applied in a consistent way to meet the
> needs and requirements of
> > operators of packet transport networks.
> >
> > During the process of development of the
> profile, additions to the
> > MPLS toolset have been made to ensure
> that the tools available met
> > the requirements. These additions were
> motivated by MPLS-TP, but form
> > part of the wider MPLS toolset such that
> any of them could be used in
> > any MPLS deployment.
> >
> > One major set of additions provides
> enhanced support for Operations,
> > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM).
> This enables fault management
> > and performance monitoring to the level
> needed in a transport
> > network. Many solutions and protocol
> extensions have been proposed to
> > address these OAM requirements, and this
> document sets out the
> > reasons for selecting a single, coherent
> set of solutions for
> > standardization.
> >
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerati
> > ons/
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerati
> > ons/
> >
> >
> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on
> this I-D.
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati
> esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o
> qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste
> informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate
> ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente
> pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di
> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
> contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s)
> only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody
> else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please delete this message and any attachments and advise
> the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf