However this is a consequence of adapting an existing technology to a new
application. I do not see any way around that. And the entire joint project was
based on the premise of engineering re-use not greenfield design. That is what
it said on the tin up front, and IMO why when the IETF started down this path
packet transport transitioned from being a minority sport to mainstream, so it
is a bit late to cry foul....
This is not what the IETF has committed to deliver to ITU-T and in fact slide
44 postpones to the OAM design phase "decide whether LSP-Ping or BFD can or
should be tweaked or not" and slide 46 reckons "many options including non IP
BFD is an option encapsulation of Y.1731 PDU"
It seems to me after having read the draft and followed this very long thread
that tweaking BFD is not the right approach to meet ITU-T requirements so it
would be worth evaluating the other alternative considered viable by the JWT
which is encapulating Y.1731 PDUs.
----Messaggio originale----
Da: david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Data: 6-lug-2011 20.24
A:
"erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it"<erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it>,
"RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt"<RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
<snipped>
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport networks' needs.
E> This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
MPLS- TP deployments.
The two statements do not necessarily follow.
What we established during discussions at the SG15 plenary in February was
that the issue some service providers had was that the IETF BFD solution
exceeded their requirements in that there was additional functionality they did
not see a need for, and that they considered any additional functionality
parasitic.
However this is a consequence of adapting an existing technology to a new
application. I do not see any way around that. And the entire joint project was
based on the premise of engineering re-use not greenfield design. That is what
it said on the tin up front, and IMO why when the IETF started down this path
packet transport transitioned from being a minority sport to mainstream, so it
is a bit late to cry foul....
My 2 cents
Dave
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf