ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-10-06 09:01:56
Brian,

The second solution already exists, (300,00+ nodes already deployed - see 
other emails on this thread).  We must acknowledge this and find the most 
cost effective way of allowing interconnection.  That is best achieved by 
recognizing the Ethernet tool set based solution and defining 
interconnection such that an interworking function is not required.  This 
has already been proposed and documented in draft revised Recommendation 
G.8110.1 (now in ITU-T last call) and is described in 
draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn.

Regards,

Malcolm




Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
05/10/2011 04:16 PM

To
yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
cc
"mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, D'Alessandro Alessandro 
Gerardo 
<alessandro(_dot_)dalessandro(_at_)telecomitalia(_dot_)it>, 
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, larryli888(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn, 
mpls-bounces@ietf.orgLarry, 
"adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Subject
Re: 答复: [mpls] 回复:  R: FW: Last Call: 
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for 
Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC






Hi Jian,

On 2011-10-06 03:53, yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
Dear All,

I do not support either.

In section 3.5:
If two MPLS OAM protocols were to be deployed we would have to consider
three possible scenarios:
1) Isolation of the network into two incompatible and unconnected 
islands.

Two OAM solutions have been discussed for a long time in both ITU-T and
IETF.
Each solution has their own supporters inculding carriers and vendors.
So I don't think there is any interworking issue between two OAM 
solutions.
Carrier will select one OAM solution, A or B, in their network.
No need to select A and B at one network at the same time.

There are two large costs that you are ignoring:

a) all vendors wishing to bid for business from A and B will have to
   implement and support both solutions.

b) when A buys B or B buys A, the incompatible networks will have to
   be merged.

These are costs that run to hundreds of millions of USD, EUR or CNY.
They are costs caused directly by SDOs creating rival solutions.

I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this
situation. As engineers, we have an ethical responsibility here.

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



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