The MPLS WG Archive

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

George.....thanks, I largely agree that this is one application of MPLS that
needs such attention.  However, it can apply to other applications (eg
VPNs...and where a p2p transit LSP is merely a degenerate topological case
of such) if deemed appropriate (wrt to actual MPLS technology embodiment
used, and not all are) and required (eg because the operator/customer wants
to have strong/measurable SLAs).

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
> Sent: 20 March 2002 23:07
> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com; mpls@UU.NET; swallow@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Clarification on today discussions 
> 
> 
> Neil -
> 
> > NH=>Well, that means one has to question the viability of 
> what is happening
> > in PWE3 and whether anyone is intending to carry ATM, or 
> anything else like
> > Sonet (since exactly the same principles apply here), over 
> MPLS....or more
> > accurately any PSN.  It can't be argued both ways, which 
> seems the current
> > case. So what's the answer from the ADs on this?
> 
> I quite agree that an operator who uses MPLS to extend and or replace
> an ATM or FR service may well desire a level of OAM in the MPLS
> protion that matches what exists (or is expected) elsewhere.  But
> following the end-to-end argument, this should be built into PWE3
> solutions.  The vast majority of MPLS which is not offering such
> services should not be "strongly recommended" to adopt such methods.
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
>