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

2011-10-06 14:48:18
Malcolm,

I'm technically incompetent to comment on draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn.
However, if we reframe the debate as "how to reconcile OaM for
Ethernet-based PTN with OaM for MPLS-TP-based PTN", we might have
a more productive discussion.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-10-07 03:00, Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf