Dear Erminio, even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far in your first generalization. "Every generalization is wrong, including this one"
Regards, Greg On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so > the > history definetely matters. > > Quoting RFC5921: > > There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP: > > 1. To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated > in a similar manner to existing transport technologies. > > 2. To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a > similar degree of predictability to that found in existing > transport networks. > > Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T > community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1. > > The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with > existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also > uselesee > in case 2. > > Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments? > > >----Messaggio originale---- > >Da: [email protected] > >Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59 > >A: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected] > >, > "IETF-Announce"<[email protected]> > >Cc: <[email protected]> > >Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall: > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> > (Proactive Connectivity Verification,Continuity Check and Remote > Defect > indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > > > >Erminio, > >I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion... > >Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications > >behind. > >You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP > >deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to > >show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied. > >Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point. > >Best regards, > >Nurit > > > >P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard > >deployments, e.g. T-MPLS? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
