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

[<[e-mail]>]

LOL....desperation Huub?

If you have followed my posts over many years now you would have noted that I have said many times that I have had to change my mind on the usefulness of AIS in the co-ps mode.  Indeed, in the post I sent Wed 08/12/2010 08:37 I said this:

"I used to think AIS might be useful for the co-ps mode (though it still requires the assumption of permanent client/server binding AND it now requires explicit labelling of every AIS packet => hint not a good idea for reasons that should become clear shortly), but many years ago Andy/I/others discussed this topic in some detail and we reached a unanimous conclusion that AIS is technically completely unnecessary.  Moreover, one is far better off without it for many reasons consequential reasons, eg having to label each traffic unit, something else to go wrong, etc.  All one needs technically in the co-ps mode is the OAM pair CV and BDI functions (however one does these)...this is quite simple to prove.  And this is 'per se'......that is, I am not even considering all the horrors that accompany the TCM ideas.....which BTW is perhaps the self-fulfilling reason to require AIS here (the notification arguments don't hold water as I noted)."
 
regards, Neil 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huub van Helvoort [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 09 December 2010 11:19
> To: Harrison,N,Neil,DKQ7 R
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Alarm Reporting (aka AIS)
> 
> Hello Neil,
> 
> You replied:
> 
> > The trite answer is that whoever wrote, and keeps promulgating,
>  > this myth does not properly understand the networking situation....
> 
> I quoted from recommendation Y.1710.
> You may know the editor of this document.
> 
> Best regards, Huub.
> 
> 
> --
> *****************************************************************
>                           我爱外点一七三一
>