Thank you for your constructive suggestion.
I will attempt to start a discussion on a new thread in a few days - I am currently travelling with very limited time windows when I can access the Internet.
Regards,
Malcolm
| Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
06/10/2011 03:47 PM |
|
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