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

2011-10-08 10:28:22
I support publication of this draft, although the SONET discussion could be 
discarded.  Also, I would like to see a reference to RFC 5921 in the 
introduction.

RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution.  At least that is how 
I read JWT Agreement.  The most relevant text seems to be in Section 9:

  They stated that in their view, 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.

Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues to be that 
only one OAM solution should become a standard.

Russ

On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Rui Costa wrote:

c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are not satisfied by 
the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?":       
For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed to perform 
this function    
proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and 
point-to-        
multipoint LSPs."     

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

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