Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP

[Thomas Walsh <[e-mail]>]

Italo,

You speak of T-MPLS as though its alive and well.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
> Of BUSI ITALO
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:34 AM
> To: Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on
MPLS-
> TP
> 
> Andy,
> 
> T-MPLS provides powerful OAM tools to detect any misconfiguration
errors
> and prevent "accidental interconnection of IP/MPLS and transport layer
> MPLS"
> 
> Italo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 11:10 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Thomas Nadeau; BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on MPLS-TP
> >
> > Sharam,
> >
> > The IP/MPLS Forum has defined the MPLS Inter-Carrier Interconnect
> > Specification (
http://www.ipmplsforum.org/tech/IPMPLSForum19.0.0.pdf
> > ). Just this past week I was in discussion with a large
European-based
> > interconnect provider (they interconnect several hundred service
> > provider networks) that has customers interested in interconnecting
> > using this specification. I know of several other providers that
have
> > also expressed interest.
> >
> > In addition, Verizon (for one) has widely deployed MPLS in its
public
> > and private IP backbone networks and intends to deploy MPLS-TP in
its
> > transport network. We are extremely concerned with precluding any
> > potential harm through the accidental interconnection of IP/MPLS and
> > transport layer MPLS, either through operational or provisioning
> > error, or though physical misconnections in a CO. With MPLS-TP, we
> > know that potential harm can be precluded. We cannot be so sure with
> > T-MPLS as defined in the current recommendations.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Shahram Davari
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > What I meant was that MPLS/T-MPLS are not used at Internet
> > peering points
> > > (E-NNI). Off course a single ISP can use MPLS or T-MPLS in their
own
> > > network, but they are in full control of their own network
> > and could make
> > > sure incompatible protocols are not used or are used in a
> > controlled manner.
> > >
> > > -Shahram
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: February-07-09 9:58 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; 'Thomas Walsh'; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on MPLS-TP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Hi Adrian and Tom,
> > >>
> > >> I am personally in favour of deprecating T-MPLS, because I
> > think the
> > >> industry needs one set of standard and having two will lead to
> > >> confusion.
> > >> But  I don't think T-MPLS is dangerous for the public
> > >> "Internet" (sine MPLS
> > >> or T-MPLS are not used in the public Internet) ,
> > >
> > >        Sharam,
> > >
> > >        I am a little surprised by your assertion above that
> > MPLS is not
> > > used
> > > in
> > > the public Internet.  The reality is quite the contrary.
> > Perhaps you
> > > meant something
> > > else or this is a typo?
> > >
> > >        --Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> and I also don't think not
> > >> following IETF change procedures is a convincing argument
(because
> > >> one might
> > >> come up with a valid protocol without following the IETF change
> > >> process).
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Shahram
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On
> > >> Behalf
> > >> Of Adrian Farrel
> > >> Sent: February-06-09 3:59 PM
> > >> To: [e-mail]; 'Thomas Walsh'; [e-mail];
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation
on
> > >> MPLS-TP
> > >>
> > >> Shahram,
> > >>
> > >> Trying to defuse a little...
> > >> I'm not sure that discussing the IETF behavior is entirely
helpful,
> > >> but for
> > >> reference, RFCs that are "replaced" are marked in the RFC list as
> > >> 'obsolete.' RFCs that are no longer relevant are marked as
> > >> 'historic' and
> > >> RFCs that are considered harmful are obsoleted by a new RFC that
> > >> describes
> > >> how they are harmful.
> > >>
> > >> What is at stake here is what is most helpful to the community at
> > >> large. If
> > >> a technology (e.g. T-MPLS) is being replaced by another
technology
> > >> (MPLS-TP)
> > >>
> > >> by wide consensus of the community (ITU-T and IETF) it is not
> > >> helpful to
> > >> allow people to think that the old technology is still
> > valid and worth
> > >> implementing. Doing so would mislead people into thinking that
they
> > >> there is
> > >>
> > >> community support for the technology. A new hardware company
coming
> > >> to the
> > >> list of Recommendations might conclude that the industry
> > supports the
> > >> technology and might waste valuable development time pursuing the
> > >> technology.
> > >>
> > >> Given that the IETF has persuaded the ITU-T that T-MPLS should
not
> > >> be worked
> > >>
> > >> on further and should be replaced by MPLS-TP, it is dangerously
> > >> misleading
> > >> to leave the T-MPLS Recommendations "lying around".
> > >>
> > >> The agreement in Geneva seems to have been a compromise. The IETF
> > >> requested
> > >> that the ITU-T should delete the existing T-MPLS Recommendations.
> > >> The ITU-T
> > >> has decided to leave the Recommendations in place until they are
> > >> "replaced"
> > >> by the v2 Recommendations that will move to MPLS-TP. It is
> > debateable
> > >> whether this replacement will mean that the v1 Recommendations
are
> > >> 'deprecated', 'obsoleted', or merely 'replaced'. It would seem
> > >> sensible,
> > >> however, to note that G.xxxx v2 completely replaces G.xxxx v1
even
> > >> if the
> > >> latter remains available in the repository. Someone implementing
or
> > >> deploying G.xxxx would take the most recent version.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, I had some reservations about the agreement in Geneva.
It
> > >> seems to
> > >>
> > >> me to be predicated on the ITU-T pulling its finger out and
> > >> producing the v2
> > >>
> > >> Recommendations. As yet I have not seen even an editor's
revisions
> > >> of any
> > >> one Recommendation (perhaps I have not looked in the right
place?).
> > >> If the
> > >> ITU-T is not willing to produce this work I must assume
> > that the JWT
> > >> agreement is not backed by meaningful intent.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Adrian
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>
> > >> To: "'Thomas Walsh'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> > >> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> > >> Cc: "'BUSI ITALO'" <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>
> > >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:50 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation
on
> > >> MPLS-TP
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Tom,
> > >>>
> > >>> AFAIK IETF doesn't remove an obsolete RFC from its server (e.g.
> > >>> RFC2598).
> > >>> Are you then asking that ITU should remove obsolete
> > recommendations
> > >>> from
> > >>> its
> > >>> server.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Shahram
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >>> Behalf
> > >>> Of Thomas Walsh
> > >>> Sent: February-06-09 2:16 PM
> > >>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >>> Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > >>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > >>> MPLS-TP
> > >>>
> > >>> Sharam,
> > >>>
> > >>> Please note I am not speaking for Stewart here, but this is my
own
> > >>> reaction to what you just said.
> > >>>
> > >>> These are two necessary steps for sure and as far as I
> > know are being
> > >>> followed.  I see nothing inconsistent in what Stuart said.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bottom line:
> > >>> The T-MPLS Recommendations were never submitted according
> > to the IETF
> > >>> change process and hence must be removed.
> > >>>
> > >>> Monique and I just spent two weeks in January at ITU-T SG
> > 13 and SG
> > >>> 11.
> > >>> We generally found very good cooperation in their
> > understanding that
> > >>> they can not publish any change to IP or an MPLS protocol in a
> > >>> Recommendation without following the IETF change process.
> > >>>
> > >>> The JWT agreement had two options (1) and (2).
> > >>>
> > >>> Option 2 would allow publication of T-MPLS
> > Recommendations by ITU-T
> > >>> as
> > >>> they currently exist as long as they remove the MPLS Ethertype.
> > >>>
> > >>> Option (1) does not allow use of the MPLS Ethertype in an ITU-T
> > >>> Recommendation unless it's a protocol approved by IETF
> > according to
> > >>> its
> > >>> change process.  And this option conforms to the IETF
> > Change process.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please do not quote JWT agreements out of context. The
> > JWT agreement
> > >>> does not give ITU-T the right to ignore the IETF change process.
> > >>>
> > >>> ITU-T may freely use IETF approved protocols.  T-MPLS is not
IETF
> > >>> approved according to the change process. IETF has a
> > right to ask for
> > >>> these offending documents to be withdrawn.
> > >>>
> > >>> Just my view,
> > >>>
> > >>> Tom
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >>> Behalf
> > >>>> Of Shahram Davari
> > >>>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM
> > >>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >>>> Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > >>> MPLS-
> > >>>> TP
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Stewart,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here is your own report:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-
> > >>>> 00.txt
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and here is what it says in your report that ITU-T agreed to
do:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Alignment of the current T-MPLS ITU-T Recommendations
> > with MPLS-TP
> > >>>>      and,
> > >>>> - Termination of the work on current T-MPLS.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I can't see anywhere in the report the term or intention of
> > >>> deprecating.
> > >>>> Could you please clarify which part of this report indicates
> > >>> deprecating?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Shahram
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >>> Behalf
> > >>>> Of Stewart Bryant
> > >>>> Sent: February-06-09 12:35 PM
> > >>>> To: [e-mail]
> > >>>> Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > >>> MPLS-
> > >>>> TP
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Huub van Helvoort wrote:
> > >>>>> Stewart,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You replied:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So by keeping the word "depreciation" in the liaison
response
> > >>>>>>> the whole discussion will start again and as Stuart already
> > >>>>>>> mentioned a few times, this is a waste of time and
resources.
> > >>>>>>> And also it confuses the industry about the position
> > of the IETF.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There is no confusion about the position of the IETF. It
> > >>>>>> has quite clearly stated that T-MPLS is a potential
> > >>>>>> danger to the Internet and should not be deployed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The most appropriate action under such circumstances is
> > >>>>>> deprecation of the protocol.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does this mean that you do not accept the agreement documented
> > >>>>> in the JWT report and WP3 report and that all the time spent
to
> > >>>>> discuss these agreements is wasted and that you want to start
> > >>>>> this discussion again.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Huub
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I can see no logical linkage between my statement and your
> > >>>> deduction. Please will you explain it to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Stewart
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp