Re: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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]

Adrian,

A similar statement is already included
in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01

5.3. LSP or PW originating in a PTN
network and terminating in a PSN
   network

   In this case the PW (or
LSP) originates (or terminates) in a PTN and
   terminates (or originates)
in a PSN.  The default OAM for the end to
   end LSP or PW is PSN.

This could be restated to avoid use of the terms PSN and PTN as:

Any LSP or PW that interconnects between a domain that uses the MPLS tool set defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] and a domain that normally uses the Ethernet tools defined in ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1] must use the MPLS tool set.

I also noted a helpful response from Ross Callon indicating that the IETF has a history of documenting "pre-standard" tools that are widely deployed.  Allocation of a ACH code point to the ITU for use only for Ethernet OAM carried in the MPLS ACH.  With a proviso that it must not be used as a mechanism to carry other messages or protocols "hiding" behind the ACH Type. Therefore, only the messages and procedures that address the OAM requirements defined in [RFC 5860], as defined in the ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1], could be carried using this code point.

Would it be helpful to respin draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn along these lines to recognize the already widespread deployment of MPLS-TP using Ethernet based OAM pdus and constrain/simplify the rules for interconnection?

Regards,

Malcolm

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

10/10/2011 05:43 AM

Please respond to
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To	<ma.yuxia@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx>, <huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx>
cc	"'IETF Discussion'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject	ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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]

Yuxia wrote:

> I also agree with Huub. 
>
> As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools
defined
> for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined
in
G.8013/Y.1731
> is an optional one. 

That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF
participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that
this
message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way?

Thanks,
Adrian



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