Adrian,
A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01
5.3. LSP or PW originating in a PTN network and terminating in a PSN
network
In this case the PW (or LSP) originates (or terminates) in a PTN and
terminates (or originates) in a PSN. The default OAM for the end to
end LSP or PW is PSN.
This could be restated to avoid use of the terms PSN and PTN as:
Any LSP or PW that interconnects between a domain that uses the MPLS tool
set defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] and a domain that normally
uses the Ethernet tools defined in ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1] must
use the MPLS tool set.
I also noted a helpful response from Ross Callon indicating that the IETF
has a history of documenting "pre-standard" tools that are widely
deployed. Allocation of a ACH code point to the ITU for use only for
Ethernet OAM carried in the MPLS ACH. With a proviso that it must not be
used as a mechanism to carry other messages or protocols "hiding" behind
the ACH Type. Therefore, only the messages and procedures that address the
OAM requirements defined in [RFC 5860], as defined in the ITU-T
Recommendation [G.8113.1], could be carried using this code point.
Would it be helpful to respin draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn along these lines
to recognize the already widespread deployment of MPLS-TP using Ethernet
based OAM pdus and constrain/simplify the rules for interconnection?
Regards,
Malcolm
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
10/10/2011 05:43 AM
Please respond to
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To
<ma(_dot_)yuxia(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn>,
<Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn>,
<huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
cc
"'IETF Discussion'" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject
ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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]
Yuxia wrote:
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.
That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF
participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that
this
message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way?
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf