If the MPLS WG had selected the OAM solution that was already existing (as indicated multiple times by the operators which have already massively deployed it), we would have had a single OAM solution both in the market and in the IETF RFCs.
We now have "two" OAM solutions: one (which is not actually really singular) documented by IETF RFCs and one widely implemented and deployed. This draft is not resolving this issue at all. >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: [email protected] >Data: 5-ott-2011 22.16 >A: <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, <mpls- [email protected]> >Ogg: Re: [mpls] 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam- considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS- TP OAM) to Informational RFC > >Hi Jian, > >On 2011-10-06 03:53, [email protected] wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I do not support either. >> >> In section 3.5: >> If two MPLS OAM protocols were to be deployed we would have to consider >> three possible scenarios: >> 1) Isolation of the network into two incompatible and unconnected islands. >> >> Two OAM solutions have been discussed for a long time in both ITU-T and >> IETF. >> Each solution has their own supporters inculding carriers and vendors. >> So I don't think there is any interworking issue between two OAM solutions. >> Carrier will select one OAM solution, A or B, in their network. >> No need to select A and B at one network at the same time. > >There are two large costs that you are ignoring: > >a) all vendors wishing to bid for business from A and B will have to > implement and support both solutions. > >b) when A buys B or B buys A, the incompatible networks will have to > be merged. > >These are costs that run to hundreds of millions of USD, EUR or CNY. >They are costs caused directly by SDOs creating rival solutions. > >I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this >situation. As engineers, we have an ethical responsibility here. > > Brian >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
