I would not go so far as to say similar to 1731, there is actually a lot of
difference under the hood. As for uni-directional BFD, that is a BFD WG problem
at the moment.
The fact that the BFD WG has not defined a solution for unidirectional p2p and
p2mp transport paths does not make BFD a
Backwards compatibility
This was the main argument risen to ground MPLS-TP OAM on BFD. It's not a
better argument than grounding MPLS-TP OAM on 1731 due to its ETH deployment
plus coherence with SDH, OTN, as defended by ITU-T.
For reasons like the above, however, MPLS-TP BFD won't be
It looks like this draft does not define a single solution for CC, CV and RDI
function
Messaggio originale
Da: alessandro.dalessan...@telecomitalia.it
Data: 13-lug-2011 15.02
A: IETF-Announceietf-announce@ietf.org
Cc: m...@ietf.orgm...@ietf.org, i...@ietf.orgi...@ietf.org
Ogg: [mpls] R:
Dear Erminio,
I'd point that the scope of G.8113.1, a.k.a G.tpoam in regard to CCM is even
more narrow then of the document being discussed. The G.8113.1 addresses
only bi-directional co-routed LSP and has no model to handle bi-directional
associated LSP in independent mode. And unidirectional p2p
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile'
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
