Dear Russ Housley,
RFC5317 said:" a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested
network". it means LSA OAM and PW OAM should be same, it means the OAM solution
should be apply on both LSP and PW layer. From RFC5317 will not educe to one
solution standard for mpls-tp oam conclusion.
B.R.
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: 2011年10月8日 23:03
To: IETF
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
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf