The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2007-Jun> msg00644



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

  • From: "Kyung-Yeop Hong \(hongk\)" <hongk@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:01:37 -0400
  • Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=hongk@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
  • Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org
  • DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3769; t=1182898986;x=1183762986; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001;h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;d=cisco.com; i=hongk@cisco.com;z=From:=20=22Kyung-Yeop=20Hong=20\(hongk\)=22=20<hongk@cisco.com>|Subject:=20RE=3A=20[PWE3]=20New=20Liaison=20Statement,=22Response=20to=20PWE3=20and=20MPLS=20WG=20concerns=20with=20G.8110.1=20Amendment=201=22|Sender:=20|To:=20=22Stewart=20Bryant=20\(stbryant\)=22=20<stbryant@cisco.com>;bh=/hVbI7FH6NO+ZACdiD2mnAEhcC4Cam7NgxSWolmlumY=;b=cVXiC7Uv4B7NB68zSWowUOlD5LlnrBs6mg4vOSWx4piyF+i0d53zgUrs+u4H0FzAeOwa9yQ1TV+I+wuE+L+GyiY3Bxq48KypY0NVqeDUaP+h7nH8B1pruA2ys9hTHrpQ;
  • Thread-Index: Ace4K+iJ5DLN6SI/S96633bgfP4mKwAFUXnw
  • Thread-Topic: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"
  • X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
  • X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAGw4gUZAZnme/2dsb2JhbAA
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,464,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="63753868:sNHT42693804"
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id l5QMprs04394
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2007 23:01:38.0556 (UTC)FILETIME=[F3C7CBC0:01C7B845]

I attended the discussion at the ITU-T SG15 meeting in Geneva when
Stewart presented the IETF liaison of
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt.

Some members of SG15, including major carriers and vendors, expressed
their support for the IETF draft, and requested to include their
opinions in the response liaison statement. However, their requests were
not taken.
Stewart was there so he knows this as well.

It is surprising that this response liaison does not reflect the reality
of the discussion occurred at the SG15 meeting.

Kyung-Yeop


-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:55 PM
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG
concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

The IETF response to our liaison of
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt
was sent as a word document. To make sure that all members of PWE3 are 
able to read it, I have extracted the substantive text as ASCII.

I have major concerns about the assumption of disjoint operation since I

cannot see how the T-MPLS protocol prevents this.

I request WG input on how to respond to this liaison.

- Stewart

======

Thank you for your liaison statement "PWE3 and MPLS WG response to 
G.8110.1 Amendment 1". 

We note your concerns with our work on T-MPLS and your draft 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.tx
t.

It appears that the work in the IETF is addressing some different 
requirements:

"Input from network operators indicates that the key requirements is the

transparent carriage of the MPLS network of one party over the MPLS 
network of another party, with the constraint that the MPLS design MUST 
NOT be changed and that the solution MUST be compatible with their 
existing large base of already deployed MPLS networks."

Some members of SG 15 expressed support for these requirements.  
However, the basis for the work in SG 15 has been the development of a 
packet switched network that meets all of the network operators 
transport operations requirements.  The assumption we have made is that 
when deploying T-MPLS for this purpose it will be deployed on a network 
that is disjoint from any already deployed IP/MPLS network.

Equipment developed prior to the approval of the T-MPLS Recommendations 
is not expected to comply with these Recommendations.

Our intention in developing the suite of T-MPLS Recommendations is to 
define a packet based transport network technology.  The design 
objectives of T-MPLS are:

a) Follow the principles of the transport network used in other ITU-T 
defined transport technologies (e.g SDH, ATM, OTN).

b) To use the PDU and forwarding plane processes defined by the IETF for

MPLS.

After the presentation of the Liaison Statement the following was noted:

*    T-MPLS OAM mechanisms have been developed by ITU-T G.8114/Y.1373 to

provide transport-like fault and performance monitoring capabilities 
including alarm suppression, packet loss measurements and support of 
multiple ownerships

*    T-MPLS protection mechanisms have been developed by ITU-T G.8131 to

provide transport-like protection schemes including trail and 
sub-network protection

*    The separation between the data plane and the control plane is a 
major requirement in transport networks

An electronic copy of this liaison statement is available at:
http://ties.itu.ch/ftp/public/itu-t/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS
/





_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls