John,
I often appreciate Erminio's comments on this mailing list but I had not till
now the pleasure to meet him because he does not attend the IETF meetings.
At my knowledge, I'm the only "Alessandro" that has been following MPLS-TP
standardization process and apparently it seems to me you want to associate
Erminio's comments to me (in your email below).
I regret to tell you that I follow standards on behalf of TI and exclusively
for the interest of my Company. I have therefore no need to use an informal
email account (and I'll never do it).
Best regards,
Alessandro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Italia
Alessandro D'Alessandro
Transport Innovation
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
phone: +39 011 228 5887
mobile: +39 335 766 9607
fax: +39 06 418 639 07
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Per conto di John E Drake
Inviato: mercoledì 19 ottobre 2011 23:55
A: erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it;
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls-bounces@ietf.orgLarry;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Oggetto: RE: [mpls] R: Re: 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call:
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a
Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
Alessandro,
Apparently, the advice given regarding the risks and costs associated with
deploying proprietary or pre-standard solutions didn't resonate with you. Do
you really expect the rest of us to clean up after you?
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:49 PM
To: brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls-bounces@ietf.orgLarry;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] R: Re: 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-
mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single
Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
If the MPLS WG had selected the OAM solution that was already existing
(as indicated multiple times by the operators which have already
massively deployed it), we would have had a single OAM solution both
in the market and in the IETF RFCs.
We now have "two" OAM solutions: one (which is not actually really
singular)
documented by IETF RFCs and one widely implemented and deployed. This
draft is not resolving this issue at all.
----Messaggio originale----
Da: brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Data: 5-ott-2011 22.16
A: <yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<mpls-
bounces@ietf.orgLarry>
Ogg: Re: [mpls] 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-
mpls-tp-oam-
considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution
for MPLS- TP OAM) to Informational RFC
Hi Jian,
On 2011-10-06 03:53, yang(_dot_)jian90(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
Dear All,
I do not support either.
In section 3.5:
If two MPLS OAM protocols were to be deployed we would have to
consider
three possible scenarios:
1) Isolation of the network into two incompatible and unconnected
islands.
Two OAM solutions have been discussed for a long time in both ITU-T
and
IETF.
Each solution has their own supporters inculding carriers and
vendors.
So I don't think there is any interworking issue between two OAM
solutions.
Carrier will select one OAM solution, A or B, in their network.
No need to select A and B at one network at the same time.
There are two large costs that you are ignoring:
a) all vendors wishing to bid for business from A and B will have to
implement and support both solutions.
b) when A buys B or B buys A, the incompatible networks will have to
be merged.
These are costs that run to hundreds of millions of USD, EUR or CNY.
They are costs caused directly by SDOs creating rival solutions.
I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this
situation. As engineers, we have an ethical responsibility here.
Brian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone
indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla
conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate
ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne
immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione,
Grazie.
This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged
information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying,
printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender
by return e-mail, Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf