The second solution already exists, (300,00+ nodes already deployed - see other emails on this thread). We must acknowledge this and find the most cost effective way of allowing interconnection. That is best achieved by recognizing the Ethernet tool set based solution and defining interconnection such that an interworking function is not required. This has already been proposed and documented in draft revised Recommendation G.8110.1 (now in ITU-T last call) and is described in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn.
Regards,
Malcolm
| Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx 05/10/2011 04:16 PM |
|
Hi Jian,
On 2011-10-06 03:53, yang.jian90@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
There are two large costs that you are ignoring:
a) all vendors wishing to bid for business from A and B will have to
implement and support both solutions.
b) when A buys B or B buys A, the incompatible networks will have to
be merged.
These are costs that run to hundreds of millions of USD, EUR or CNY.
They are costs caused directly by SDOs creating rival solutions.
I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this
situation. As engineers, we have an ethical responsibility here.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf