Huub sed: > 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. Can I just ask for some clarification of this. We have become accustomed to refer to various in-band protection mechanisms (such as G.8031, etc.) as OAM. Although I can't say I am happy with this description (I prefer "n-band control plane") I can see how there is a close relationship with the OAM messages especially as far as triggers are concerned. If we allow that these protection mechanisms are a form of OAM, then you will be aware of the work in Question 9/15 on what is being called G.iwk. This is examining the interworking of a variety of protection mechanisms at domain boundaries. So I suppose my questions are: - Do you consider protection mechanisms part of OAM? - Do you consider "peer OAM interworking" to be different from the work in G.iwk (and to some extent G.873.2)? > 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. Are you saying that "coexistence" is only about providing e2e services across mixed networks? When you say that "Section 6 is totally irrelevant" are you saying that there is no need to establish the various issues and concerns wrt coexistence? You are (I assume!) not saying that draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn is totally irrelevant. It certainly seems to me that Section 6 reaches many of the same conclusions for e2e delivery of OAM as are found in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn: perhaps the main difference is that this draft shows its workings. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf