Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] MPLS WG slides from CMCC

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Hej Christopher,

Please see in-line [hvh]

> I don't believe I do. The requirements document just that, requirements,
> not solutions. After RFC5860 was published, a few potential solutions to
> the requirements set out in RFC5860 were proposed, one of those is bhh.
> Just because bhh supposedly responds to RFC5860 does not mean that it
> automatically becomes a standard. The road to standardization has many
> corpses along it (look at the road to IPng, for example, or idr). Just
> because it responds to RFC5860 does not change the fact that a draft is
> just that, a draft. That draft isn't even accepted as a working-group
> document yet.

[hvh] one of the reasons for *not* accepting it as WG draft was that
there were too many co-authors.

> Therefore, basing your technology around it is a dice roll. I assume
> that CMCC has evaluated the risk of draft-bhh not becoming a standard
> and has decided that that risk is outweighed by whatever benefits CMCC
> will derive from deploying a solution based around draft-bhh, even if it
> does not become a standard. If they have, then good on them, do what you
> need to do to keep your network running (I've ventured off the trodden
> path once or twice myself).

[hvh] another reason for the selection was the availability of
a solution.

> However, if CMCC (or any other carrier) have decided to deploy draft-bhh
> based on an understanding that draft-bhh WOULD become a standard, that
> would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.

[hvh] the fact that they are really interested in this solution is
proven by the standardisation of this solution in CCSA.

[hvh] because service providers outside of China also want to
use this solution they would like to make it an international
standard.

> It is my understanding that
> the working group has never guaranteed that draft-bhh would become a
> STANDARD, and if that had been signaled, then I would expect draft-bhh
> to be a working-group draft, at least. I am not saying that it won't
> become a standard, I'm just saying that one (or a few) operators

[hvh] it is not a few anymore.

> deciding to deploy something does not automatically grant it a quick
> path to standardization in the IETF, especially if other operators have
> a differing opinion of that draft proposal.

[hvh] also one, or a few.

M.v.h. Huub.

============
> On 14Dec2010, at 18.51, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
>
>> Hello Chris,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>> My concern here is that the requirements are based on a DRAFT.
>>
>> I think you have the order wrong.
>> The MPLS-TP OAM requirements are in RFC5860:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5860
>>
>> draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 is a solution based on RFC5860.
>>
>>> Not that
>>> that doesn't happen from time to time, but that does not mean that the
>>> IETF must then standardize that DRAFT. Someone writing a spec based on
>>> DRAFTs are taking an (educated) gamble that that DRAFT will be
>>> standardized and supported by other vendors.
>>
>> draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 provides a set of tools that fits in
>> a larger toolbox with multiple tools.
>>
>>> In short, the decision, is, of course, the prerogative of the purchaser,
>>
>> The service provider can pick a selection of the tools for
>> use in his network by enabling the ones he needs.
>> CMCC and many other service providers have a preference for
>> the tools provided by draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731.
>>
>> Best regards, Huub.
>>
>> ===================
>>> On 11Nov2010, at 18.52, Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Huub:
>>>>
>>>> Yes!
>>>> Actually, China Mobile has introduced 38,000 PTN equipments based on
>>>> pre-standard G.8114 in 2009. China Mobile will introduce more than
>>>> 110,000 PTN equipments based on draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 in 2010.
>>>> We will upgrade G.8114 to Y.1731 based OAM by the end of this year.
>>>> Because Draft-bhh and relevant CCSA standard are based on Y.1731, so I
>>>> use Y.1731 to present all of them.
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Han Li
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************************************
>>>> Han Li, Ph.D
>>>> China Mobile Research Institute
>>>> Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
>>>> Fax: [phone]
>>>> MOBILE: [phone]
>>>> *************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- 10年11月11日，周四, Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 写道：
>>>>
>>>>> 发件人: Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>> 主题: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] MPLS WG slides from CMCC
>>>>> 收件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> 抄送: "'lihan'" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Ad hoc MPLS-TP"
>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>>>>> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>> 日期: 2010年11月11日,周四,下午3:21
>>>>> Li Han, 你好！
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much for this informative information.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/attachment/wiki/meeting-notes/CMCC%20implementation%20and%20consideration%20for%20MPLS-TP-01.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are links from the meetings materials page
>>>>>> (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/wiki/meeting-notes)
>>>>> and from the wiki
>>>>>> home page (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question about slide 3:
>>>>> the last bullet states: OAM: "based on Y.1731 and pre-
>>>>> standard G.8114"
>>>>>
>>>>> By "based on Y.1731" do you refer to
>>>>> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731
>>>>> and the CCSA standard that will soon be published?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Huub.



-- 
*****************************************************************
                          我爱外点一七三一