Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Malcolm,

I'm technically incompetent to comment on draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn.
However, if we reframe the debate as "how to reconcile OaM for
Ethernet-based PTN with OaM for MPLS-TP-based PTN", we might have
a more productive discussion.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-10-07 03:00, Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]