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.
Neither of these statements is completely accurate.
For example, the ITU produced Y.1712 that details the peer-peer interworking
of ATM OAM per I.610 with the MPLS OAM described in Y.171.
I think that the accurate statement is that OAM interworking is perhaps
undesirable
but trivial when the OAM semantics matches so that the interworking is
syntactic translation,
but very challenging (and perhaps sometimes impossible) when the semantics are
different.
(For "semantics to be different" it is enough for timer values to be different,
let alone different fault states.)
However, there are many cases where several OAM types co-exist in a single
deployment.
Perhaps the most relevant case is the widespread use of both EFM OAM (802.3
Section 57) with Y.1731 OAM.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf