Huub van Helvoort wrote 09 October 2011 12:42
To: IETF Discussion
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.
Indeed, to have any peer to peer OAM simply removes the ability of the OAM to
do its job.
regards, Neil
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