RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

[Raj Sharma <[e-mail]>]

2a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 7:34 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: MPLS OAM & the IETF
> 
> 
> subject:   MPLS OAM & the IETF
> 
> The result of the MPLS OAM BOF in Salt Lake City has been 
> confirmed over
> the last few days in the mailing list thread 
> "draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02."
> 
> 
> That result was and is that there are at least two quite 
> different views on
> the type of OAM tools and technologies needed for MPLS networks.  
> 
> My reading of the groups is that one group, who are mostly 
> concerned with
> the transport of IP over MPLS, generally feel that tools 
> approximating the
> traditional "ping" and "traceroute" tools used on IP networks are
> sufficient.  A second group seems to feel that those tools do 
> not provide
> enough of a view of the service a customer is getting to be 
> sufficient and
> that tools approximating traditional telephone system OAM 
> tools are needed
> to get the complete picture.
> 
> Meanwhile, the ITU-T has been working in this area and has a 
> document in
> their equivalent of the IETF Last-Call. Brian Moore, the 
> ITU-T Study Group
> 13 chair, kindly arraigned for the ITU-T document (known as 
> Y.1711) to be
> put on an ftp site so interested IETF folk can take a look at 
> what they
> have done.  The URL is 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ip/sg13-ietf-ftp.ht
ml (IETF folk
have to register to use the FTP site.)

It seems to me that there are two options on what we (the IETF) could do at
this point.

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)