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]

 



Huub,

you are partly right - slide 9 says that there are open issues.

But at the last meeting with the JWT consensus on the *summary*
was the issue. The questions was put explicitly. At that time no one
voiced another opinion!

/Loa

On 2011-10-09 12:58, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
Hello Russ,

You write:

RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution.
 > At least that is how I read JWT Agreement.

How the JWT report should be read is written on slide 9 in the PDF:

"This presentation is a collection of *assumptions*, discussion points
and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of
March and April, 2008
This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical
analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS
architecture to meet those requirements"

The most relevant text seems to be in Section 9:

This text is one of the assumptions, that is why we wrote:
"*They stated that in their view*":

it is technically feasible that the
existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the requirements
of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows for a single
OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested network.

The "OAM technology" in this text refers to to way the OAM frames can be
detected in a data-stream.

The text you quote is from the summary section, it summarizes the
slides 19 - 22: "*MPLS-TP Major Solution Constructs*" which address
the GAL-GAch solution.

We now have the GAL-GAch technology (RFC5586) to detect OAM frames
and this technology will be used in PW and LSP, and enables the use
of OAM in deeply nested networks.

Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues
 > to be that only one OAM solution should become a standard.

All MPLS-TP OAM tools should comply with RFC5586.

A service provider can now pick any set or sub-set of the available
OAM tools and use them without fear to disrupt the internet.

Looking at the current discussions, there is no consensus (yet)
on whether we need a comprehensive set of OAM tools, or a very
limited set of OAM tools.

Best regards, Huub (JWT, Ad-Hoc, MEAD member).


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

--


Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                             +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
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]