Adrian, A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01
5.3. LSP or PW originating in a PTN network and terminating in a PSN network In this case the PW (or LSP) originates (or terminates) in a PTN and terminates (or originates) in a PSN. The default OAM for the end to end LSP or PW is PSN. This could be restated to avoid use of the terms PSN and PTN as: Any LSP or PW that interconnects between a domain that uses the MPLS tool set defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] and a domain that normally uses the Ethernet tools defined in ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1] must use the MPLS tool set. I also noted a helpful response from Ross Callon indicating that the IETF has a history of documenting "pre-standard" tools that are widely deployed. Allocation of a ACH code point to the ITU for use only for Ethernet OAM carried in the MPLS ACH. With a proviso that it must not be used as a mechanism to carry other messages or protocols "hiding" behind the ACH Type. Therefore, only the messages and procedures that address the OAM requirements defined in [RFC 5860], as defined in the ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1], could be carried using this code point. Would it be helpful to respin draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn along these lines to recognize the already widespread deployment of MPLS-TP using Ethernet based OAM pdus and constrain/simplify the rules for interconnection? Regards, Malcolm "Adrian Farrel" <adr...@olddog.co.uk> 10/10/2011 05:43 AM Please respond to <adr...@olddog.co.uk> To <ma.yu...@zte.com.cn>, <malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn>, <huubatw...@gmail.com> cc "'IETF Discussion'" <ietf@ietf.org> Subject ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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] Yuxia wrote: > 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. That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that this message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way? Thanks, Adrian
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf