The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <3FB01D2D.9080107@netscape.net>, Loa Andersson writes:
> Sharam,
> 
> note that Neil, Dave and I agree on that the disconnect is there,
> I'm not certain that they agree with how I described (but that
> is also part of the disconnect :) ).
> 
> Anyway - I guess that the core of the matter is that the architecture
> is written positioning mpls as a part of the ip protocol suite, while
> the oam framework rather position it as a "newer and better ATM" that
> necessarily needs to have all the features of ATM.
> 
> This shows up in a numbe of places, the concept of layers and levels
> is, not what I see as useful in the type of IP network I've been
> involved in.
> 
> The definition of "LSP" is not what is in the architecture document.
> 
> PHP is designed out by the oam framework, but an in by the mpls
> architecture.
> 
> But you are misrepresenting me when you say that the differences is
> not resolvable. In fact the proposal to start on a fresh document
> is intended jsut to achieve that. I guess that if there are two people
> representing two different ideas on a subject, the requirement that one
> of the has to accept the ideas of the other to be part work seems to
> be counter-productive.
> 
> Further if we have a "default" document in this case it should be the
> architecture.
> 
> /Loa



Loa,

The default is reality and reality seems to be that PHP is here and
PHP is not going away any time soon.  So far Dave and Neil have not
made a compelling case that their notion of an OAM framework has
benefits that justify a change to the architecture and with it a
change in the reality that the two equipment suppliers with highest
market share both rely on PHP and so do many others.

I'm personally not all that convinced about P-MP but I'm also not
ready to say it should be eliminated based on it not fitting into a
particular OAM framework.

The architecture document is both a document that though maybe not
perfect has been a basis of the work of this group and is a good
reflection of reality.  The OAM framework attempts to align the work
of the MPLS WG with conflicting work of the ITU which has been
repeatedly rejected by the MPLS WG.

I entirely agree with you that we don't need to change the direction
of MPLS to make it a "newer better ATM" and therefore having Thomas
and David try to work together to produce an OAM framework that is
consistent with the MPLS architecture is a worthy goal.

If David does not want to compromise, then perhaps Thomas should serve
as editor of an OAM architecture document for advancement by the WG.
If so, perhaps David can advance his OAM architecture as an
informational document outside the WG.

Curtis



> Shahram Davari wrote:
> 
> >Loa,
> >
> >Could you please technically articulate were the disconnect is?
> >and why isn't it resolvable, so that it needs a new draft?
> >In other words please provide valid justification for your
> >request.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Shahram
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:NtscpUsrLoa@netscape.net]
> >>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 9:27 PM
> >>To: MPLS wg
> >>Cc: George Swallow; Alex Zinin
> >>Subject: on the mpls oam framework
> >>
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>I read the mpls oam framework as it has been suggested in
> >>Dave Allans draft (draft-allan-mpls-oam-frmwrk) and also
> >>re-read the the mpls architecture document. I've the architecture
> >>authors to review the oam framework and received some feedback
> >>    
> >>
> >>from them.
> >  
> >
> >>It is my understanding that there is a serious disconnect
> >>between the architecture and oam framework, and I therefore
> >>want to restart the oam framework in a fresh document,
> >>with the undertanding that this document shall be aligned
> >>with the architecture.
> >>
> >>I asked David Allan and Tom Nadeau to take on the editorship
> >>for this new document, and hope to have positive answers from
> >>both of them before the mpls wg meeting in Minneapolis.
> >>
> >>/Loa