ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

2011-09-30 14:48:06
Huub,

On 2011-09-30 20:19, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
All,

Section 1,1 also contains the text:
   [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically feasible that
   the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the
   requirements of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows
   for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested
   network."

This is a quote from slide 113 in the PDF version of RFC5317 and should
be read in realtion to the statement on slide 12 of the same RFC:

"This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points
 and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of
 March and April, 2008
 This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical
 analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS
 architecture to meet those requirements"

So the quoted text in the draft is one of the assumptions.

The fact that there are currently *two* OAM mechanisms (and not a
*single*), i.e. one for PW and one for LSP proves that the assumption
was not correct.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. You seem to be saying that
the fact that two solutions have been designed proves that the assumption
that a single solution is possible was false. That doesn't follow at
all. The engineering profession has a long history of producing multiple
solutions where a single one was possible, and this seems to be just
another such case.

This isn't news. I quote from RFC 1958 (June 1996):

"  3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
   If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
   successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless
   there is a good technical reason not to.  Duplication of the same
   protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
   of course using this argument to reject improvements."

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>