Russ,
You may not be fully aware of the context of the statement in RFC 5317:
As the co-chair of the JTW and co-editor of the JWT report I must point
out the context of the text that you have quoted:
First, the text is on slide 113, slide 12 states:
This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points and
decisions that the combined group has had during the months of March and
April, 2008
This represents the agreed upon starting point for the technical analysis
of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS architecture to
meet those requirements
Second: The discussion point that drove the text on slide 113 was the
consideration that PWs and LSPs may have different OAM. The reality is
that the solution standardized uses different encapsulations for the PW
(no GAL) and LSP (uses the GAL).
Regards,
Malcolm
Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
08/10/2011 11:02 AM
To
IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
cc
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