All,
I also agree with Huub.
As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools
defined for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined
in G.8013/Y.1731 is an optional one.
B.R.
Yuxia
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
发件人: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
2011-10-09 21:27
收件人
huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
抄送
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
主题
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
Huub,
I agree.
Regards,
Malcolm
Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
09/10/2011 07:42 AM
Please respond to
huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
To
IETF Discussion <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
All,
I still do not support this draft.
Section 6 focusses on the interworking between two toolsets
In transport networks we *never* have peer-2-peer OAM interworking.
If it was required it would have explicitly been mentioned in
the MPLS-TP requirements RFC.
Why don't you simply read draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn or Annex B
of G.8110.1 where it is documented how different toolsets can
be deployed in a network without any issues.
Section 6 is totally irrelevant.
Regards, Huub.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf