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

[Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx]

Huub,

I agree.

Regards,

Malcolm

Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx

09/10/2011 07:42 AM

Please respond to
huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx

To	IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	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

All,

I still do not support this draft.

Section 6 focusses on the interworking between two toolsets

In transport networks we *never* have peer-2-peer OAM interworking.
If it was required it would have explicitly been mentioned in
the MPLS-TP requirements RFC.

Why don't you simply read draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn or Annex B
of G.8110.1 where it is documented how different toolsets can
be deployed in a network without any issues.

Section 6 is totally irrelevant.

Regards, Huub.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf