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

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

The first version of T-MPLS OAM tools are defined in ITU-T (approved and
in-force) Recommendation G.8112

G.8112 CV is powerful enogh to detect misconnections

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: BUSI ITALO
> Cc: Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on MPLS-TP
> 
> Italo,
> 
> exactly what are you referring to here? Where are "the powerful
> T-MPLS OAM tools" documented?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> BUSI ITALO wrote:
> > 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
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///                          phone:  [phone]
> 
>                                        email:  
> [e-mail]
>                                                
> [e-mail]
>                                                [e-mail]
> 
> 
>