The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Curtis:

You misuderstand me, I lump all tools (including LSP-PING, BFD, VCCV, ITU
efforts) together under the blanket of OAM.

enough for now
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:56 AM
> To: Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]
> Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; 'tnadeau@cisco.com'; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: on documenting ECMP (was on the mpls oam framework) 
> 
> 
> 
> In message 
> <FFFC48AEAA5F7447929F4F0D93FCC12D02B9280B@zcard031.ca.nortel.c
> om>, " David Allan" writes:
> > Curtis:
> > 
> > >From my perspective there is simply OAM.
> 
> Then withdraw as an author of the framework document.  That 
> would be like Ohta writing the IP over ATM framework 
> (Conventional IP or ATM advocate).
> 
> > To date a fundamental obstacle to progressing OAM has been 
> the issue 
> > of how OAM flows are distinguished, esp in the presence of 
> ECMP. When 
> > a packet needs to be IP, when it needs to not alias as IP, 
> > restrictions on the use of reserved labels to distinguish flows and 
> > where such labels can appear in the stack, yadda yadda 
> yadda. This has 
> > been an obstacle to discussing the actual functionality required or 
> > any other relative merits as all solutions have been held 
> up to this 
> > problem first without the actual problem to be solved being 
> documented 
> > anywhere.
> > 
> > Taking ECMP off the table as an issue by documenting at a 
> minimum the 
> > protocol aspects so we can get on with the actual functionality 
> > required would IMO be progress. The lack of information has 
> been THE 
> > obstruction all along.....
> > 
> > cheers
> > Dave
> 
> See my prior email.  If OAM doesn't work with ECMP as it 
> exists in the real world then it is just an applicability 
> issue that needs to be documented.
> 
> Curtis
>