Re: [mpls-tp] 答复: Re: Alarm Reporting (aka AIS)

And, as Maarten pointed out, its absence would align us with the IEEE

Sent from my iPhone

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:12 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; huubatwork@gmail.com; wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] 答复: Re: Alarm Reporting (aka AIS)

+1
2010/12/13 John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>
Huub,

A bis update to the RFC, indicating that upon further refection the requirement was ill-considered, can always be issued.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org>] On
> Behalf Of neil.2.harrison@bt.com<mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 6:29 AM
> To: huubatwork@gmail.com<mailto:huubatwork@gmail.com>; wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn<mailto:wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn>
> Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] 答复: Re: Alarm Reporting (aka AIS)
>
> Huub wrote 13 December 2010 10:21
>
> > Hello Steven,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > I think we need to listen to the views of Neil on AIS.
> > >
> > > This is just a purely technical discussion, isn't it?
> >
> > Yes it is, I am *not* trying to shoot the messenger.
> >
> > My concern is that we have a requirement in RFC5860.
> > A solution (for AIS) is provided in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault.
> >
> > How will the current discussion affect the progress of this draft?
>
> NH=> I guess a key issue here is trying to figure out which, if any,
> operators still want AIS.  Perhaps those operators did not previously
> understand that:
> -     is it a redundant technical function (for reasons I have
> explained previously), and
> -     it is a potential source of further problems in itself, as OAM
> messages have to be constructed/configured (the always-on defect
> detection needs to be as simple/sparse as possible since it must be
> significantly more reliable than the network it is monitoring, and thus
> all unnecessary sources of defects/configuration-errors should be
> minimised).
>
> Perhaps those operators who may have originally supported the
> requirement for AIS in packet-switched networks did not properly
> understood these issues before?
>
> In any case, it is important that for those operators who have properly
> understood what AIS is to be able to have this function disabled in
> their networks.
>
> regards, Neil
>
> >
> > Regards, Huub.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> mpls-tp@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp