Thanks for pointing out to me how poor my memory has become.
For some reason I remembered 3, 30, and 300 per second,
instead of 10, 100, and 300 per second.
I rescind my first comment,
but stand by my second one.
From: Francesco Fondelli [mailto:francesco(_dot_)fondelli(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 09:33
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: Rui Costa; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Adrian Farrel
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements
(Requirementsfor OAM in MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s(_at_)rad(_dot_)com>
While a co-author of the draft proposing re-use of Y.1731 OAM for MPLS-TP,
and quite understanding the reasoning behind reusing existing formats,
I am puzzled by two of your statements.
First, that Y.1731 CCMs "would ease more vendor's implementations to
converge to the 50ms protection timescale".
One of the major problems with Y.1731 is the lack of a 100 packet per second
rate, forcing the use of 300 packets per second at high resource cost.
--- T-REC-Y.1731-200802 ---
7.1.1 CCM (with ETH-CC information) Transmission
When ETH-CC is enabled, a MEP periodically transmits CCM frames as
often as the configured transmission period. Transmission period
can be one of the following seven values:
- 3.33ms: default transmission period for protection switching
application (transmission rate of 300 frames/second)
- 10ms: (transmission rate is 100 frames/second)
Even if I'm not a big fan of it I have to say that
100 pps is foressen by Y.1731 (and even by your ID,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-03, Section 4.1.1)
Ietf mailing list