The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] Re: [PWE3] Fwd: I-DACTION:draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt
O'Connor, Don wrote: > > 1) Transport MPLS as pursued by ITU encompasses functionality that overlaps work in multiple IETF WGs. A minimum subset is PWE3 and MPLS. Work in CCAMP is also most probably relevant. Without companion work in the MPLS WG on a T-MPLS implementation profile, draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt serves no useful purpose As I understand it T-MPLS is a strict subset of MPLS, so I am at a loss to understand why additional MPLS work is needed. Indeed if work is needed, it is NOT a true subset, should not be called xMPLS and most important MUST NOT use the MPLS codepoints. So if you are correct we should be send an urgent Liaison requiring ITU to withdraw the T-MPLS specification. > > I suggest that a first necessary step is that the appropriate Area Directors consider whether or not they want to take on the entire task of generating a complete Transport MPLS implementation profile based on current RFC / ID / extensions and doing it right and comprehensively. WG charters should be updated appropriately If extensions are needed it is surely not a TRUE subset, and appropriate ammendments need to be made to the ITU specs. > > In its present form draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt is an incomplete attempt at addressing a portion of what ITU SG 15 and ITU SG 13 are pursuing for Transport MPLS Please could you be more specific - perhaps contributing text? > > If IETF leadership decides that they would like to pursue a comprehensive Transport MPLS implementation profile, it should be done in cooperation and coordination with leadership in ITU SG 15 and SG 13. I would support such as effort if it is done in this context. To date draft-bryant-pwe3-transport-00.txt does not fall into this category Again please be specific. > > 2) draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt does not adequately address Transport MPLS OAM and Protection Switching requirements > > 2A) Protection Switching - linear protection switching coordinated by an appropriate OAM protocol is required. It is necessary to meet the requirements of G.8131 "Define requirements for and mechanisms to provide protection and restoration of PWs." is an element of the PWE3 existing charter. There seems no reason why a suitable design would not encompass the requirements of a transport application. Please could you articulate any specific aspects of a PW solution that we need to be careful to address that you would not ordinarily expect us to address. Perhaps I could encourage you to submit a solutions draft on the subject of protection mechanisms? > > 2B) Current pseudowire VCCC OAM lacks - Maintenance Entity Levels, MEP / MIP, AIS / RDI, PM measurement. It is necessary to provide the functionality being developed for Y.17tom I will leave that to the OAM specialist to respond on, but I do not see any reason why transport should have any requirements that diverge from the normal PW case, i.e. if a requirement is NEEDED in one domain, I would expect it to be NEEDED in the other. - Stewart _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|