Brian, Thank you for your constructive suggestion.
I will attempt to start a discussion on a new thread in a few days - I am currently travelling with very limited time windows when I can access the Internet. Regards, Malcolm Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 06/10/2011 03:47 PM To [email protected] cc "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC Malcolm, I'm technically incompetent to comment on draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn. However, if we reframe the debate as "how to reconcile OaM for Ethernet-based PTN with OaM for MPLS-TP-based PTN", we might have a more productive discussion. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-10-07 03:00, [email protected] wrote: > Brian, > > The second solution already exists, (300,00+ nodes already deployed - see > other emails on this thread). We must acknowledge this and find the most > cost effective way of allowing interconnection. That is best achieved by > recognizing the Ethernet tool set based solution and defining > interconnection such that an interworking function is not required. This > has already been proposed and documented in draft revised Recommendation > G.8110.1 (now in ITU-T last call) and is described in > draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn. > > Regards, > > Malcolm
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
