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
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
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.
Ietf mailing list