The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so the
history definetely matters.
Quoting RFC5921:
There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:
1. To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.
2. To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
transport networks.
Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.
The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also uselesee
in case 2.
Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?
----Messaggio originale----
Da: nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com
Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
A: <erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it>,
<RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt>, <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification,Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Erminio,
I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
behind.
You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
Best regards,
Nurit
P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard
deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf