All, I also agree with Huub.
As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools defined for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined in G.8013/Y.1731 is an optional one. B.R. Yuxia [email protected] 发件人: [email protected] 2011-10-09 21:27 收件人 [email protected] 抄送 [email protected], IETF Discussion <[email protected]> 主题 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 Huub, I agree. Regards, Malcolm Huub van Helvoort <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 09/10/2011 07:42 AM Please respond to [email protected] To IETF Discussion <[email protected]> cc 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 All, I still do not support this draft. Section 6 focusses on the interworking between two toolsets In transport networks we *never* have peer-2-peer OAM interworking. If it was required it would have explicitly been mentioned in the MPLS-TP requirements RFC. Why don't you simply read draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn or Annex B of G.8110.1 where it is documented how different toolsets can be deployed in a network without any issues. Section 6 is totally irrelevant. Regards, Huub. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
