Hi Mikael, Here we have perfect agreement. I proposed this in a recent posting and proposed further to do the MPLS related work in the MPLS group within IETF rather than TICTOC. Antti
-----Original Message----- From: ext Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:31 PM To: Pietilainen, Antti (NSN - FI/Espoo) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Pietilainen, Antti (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > No, I'm just considering the IETF/ITU overlap on optical transmission of > time. Personally I'd be more comfortable with extensions/additions to MPLS being done within IETF, not in ITU. > Antti > > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:58 AM > To: Pietilainen, Antti (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc: ext Yaakov Stein; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Pietilainen, Antti (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> When addressing PTP over MPLS with PTP protocol support from >> intermediate nodes, one is actually solving the problem how to carry >> time synchronization over OTN (optical transport network), SDH >> (synchronous optical network), and SONET (and even Ethernet). This is >> exactly what ITU-T SG15 is doing. I cannot see anything else but full >> overlap. > > Should I interpret the above that you're saying the problem and solution > > is identical in MPLS-TP and MPLS? > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
