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

["BUSI ITALO" <[e-mail]>]

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
> >
>