Loa,
As per my previous email , I have only seen one response to the 12 points
that I raised, I do not agree with your assessment of this document.
Just to remind you of the points made by myself and several others on
SONET and SDH:
SONET is a true subset of SDH:
The SDH standard supports both the North American and Japanese 24
channel/T1/T3 hierarchy and the European 30 channel/E1/E4 based hierarchy
within a single multiplexing structure.
SDH has no options for payloads at VC-4 (150Mb/s) and above. This has
provided the basis for common solutions for packet based clients (GFP).
SDH allows T1/T3 services to be delivered in Europe and E1 services to be
delivered in North America using a common infra structure.
A single standard that supported either the T1/T3 hierarchy or the E1
hierarchy would not have been successful.
Deployment of a E1 only standard in North America would have required the
conversion of all of the 24 channel/T1 deployed equipment and services
into the 30 channel/E1 format. Similarly deployment of a T1 only standard
in Europe would have required the conversion of all of the 30 channel/E1
equipment and services into 24 channel/T1 format. Clearly given the
existing network deployments (in 1988) this was not a practical
proposition.
Regards,
Malcolm
Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
23/10/2011 02:07 PM
To
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
cc
The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF-Announce
<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
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've taken time to re-read this draft over the weekend.
I still think it is well-written and extremely to the point;
it is in the interest of the IETF to publish. I support
publication of the draft.
Admittedly there are some issues around the e.g. the description of the
SDH/SONNET and the standardization of those technologies. Having
been involved in development of equipment that could run both
SDH and SONET, my understanding is that both when it comes to
chips and SW the split, even after the compromise, lead to higher
costs and longer schedules. we would have been in a better shape
with one standard also that time.
Maybe the authors should reflect the facts that Huub correctly point
out in his early mail on this thread, where he describes a situation
that was much worse than what is in the document.
/Loa
On 2011-09-26 12:42, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM'
<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> as an
Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments
may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS technology
for use in transport network deployments. That is, MPLS-TP is a set
of functions and features selected from the wider MPLS toolset and
applied in a consistent way to meet the needs and requirements of
operators of packet transport networks.
During the process of development of the profile, additions to the
MPLS toolset have been made to ensure that the tools available met
the requirements. These additions were motivated by MPLS-TP, but
form
part of the wider MPLS toolset such that any of them could be used
in
any MPLS deployment.
One major set of additions provides enhanced support for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). This enables fault management
and performance monitoring to the level needed in a transport
network. Many solutions and protocol extensions have been proposed
to
address these OAM requirements, and this document sets out the
reasons for selecting a single, coherent set of solutions for
standardization.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_dot_)andersson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
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