Brian,
Thank you for your constructive suggestion.
I will attempt to start a discussion on a new thread in a few days - I am
currently travelling with very limited time windows when I can access the
Internet.
Regards,
Malcolm
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
06/10/2011 03:47 PM
To
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
cc
"adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject
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
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