ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements (Requirementsfor OAM in MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard

2009-10-08 03:33:12
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s(_at_)rad(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
Rui,

Hi all,

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.

hemm

--- 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)

[cut]

Y(J)S

Ciao
FF
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf