RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

"Vip Sharma" <vsharma@zagrosnetworks.com> Mon, 11 March 2002 19:59 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:06:31 -0800
From: Vip Sharma <vsharma@zagrosnetworks.com>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: 'Scott Bradner' <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:59:17 -0500
Message-ID: <008101c1c937$39bee2c0$7400a8c0@zagrosnetworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I vote for 2. If we add the buerocracy of working with ITU we will add
significant delays. IETF should come out with solutions and then market
forces will cause them to be adopted or not. Anyway, ITU folks should
also participated (if they want) and make this a complete solution...

vip

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:28 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Scott Bradner
Subject: Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF



         I vote for 2.  Although I think there is room
for input in the form of requirements/requests and such
from the ITU, I think that having to interface with
the ITU for this work is going to lead to interop
problems as well as delay the work.  The IETF created the
standards for MPLS and continues to evolve the technology,
so it makes sense to me that we continue to create and evolve
the standards for managing MPLS.

         --Tom


>Scott Bradner wrote:
>
> >
> > 0/ you think I do not understand the issue
> >
> > 1/ split the tasks:  The IETF focus on the ping/traceroute
mechanisms and
> > cede to the ITU-T work on the more telco-like OAM.  In this option
the IETF
> > would publish draft-ohta-mpls-label-value-01.txt as an RFC and
assign an
> > MPLS reserved label value for use by the ITU-T to identify Y.1711
> > information.
> >
> > 2/ The IETF work on a suite of technologies ranging from the
> > ping/traceroute-like mechanisms to the more telephone system OAM
ones.  The
> > IETF could try to figure out how to do this in conjunction with the
ITU,
> > though it is a bit late for that considering the state of Y.1711, or
be in
> > competition with the ITU-T.
> >
> > So - please indicate your opinion on how the IETF should proceed
> >
> > 1 - split the tasks between the IETF and the ITU-T
> > 2 - IETF produce standards track documents covering both areas
> >   2a - trying to work with the ITU-T to produce common technology
> >   2b - in competition with the ITU-T
> >
> > In any case, it would be good to provide feedback to the ITU-T on
Y.1711 if
> > you see anything that looks broken.
> >
> > Scott (with sub-ip AD hat on)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.