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.
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF neil.2.harrison
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Vip Sharma
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Ping Pan
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Don Fedyk
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Mohammad Siddiqui
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Matt Squire
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Tom Petch
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Yutaka SAKAI
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Raj Sharma
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Randy Bush
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Mina Azad
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF David Allan
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Joel M. Halpern
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF John Drake
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Eric Rosen
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Giles Heron
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Gibson, Mark
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF neil.2.harrison
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Giles Heron
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Igor Faynberg
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF George Swallow
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF ananth.nagarajan
- MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner