Re: [mpls] Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429

[Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau at lucidvision.com>]

	Sharam,

	Lets please not play your normal games around this. We all know what  
you are getting
at here, and I have little time or patience to play that useless game  
again...

	--Tom



> Tom,
>
> Could you please provide your definition of MPLS OAM? I have been  
> involved
> in MPLS and OAM for more than 10 years and my understanding is that  
> Y.1711
> is the first MPLS OAM defined in the industry.
>
> -Shahram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf  
> Of
> Thomas Nadeau
> Sent: April-02-08 7:33 PM
> To: Francesco Fondelli
> Cc: mpls at ietf.org; Masayuki Takase
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429
>
>
> 	ITU recommendation Y1711 has nothing to do with MPLS OAM.  If you
> want a
> good overview of IETF MPLS OAM take a look at RFC4221.
>
> 	--Tom
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Francesco Fondelli wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Thomas Nadeau
>> <tnadeau at lucidvision.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       How could you have built MPLS OAM to support label 14? Do
>>> you mean
>>> you implemented Y1711 using label 14?
>>>
>>>       --Tom
>>
>> Back in 2002/2003/2004? there used to be no 'T-' :-)
>>
>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1711/en
>>
>> "Y.1711: Operation & Maintenance mechanism for MPLS networks"
>>
>> Clear, isn't it? //I'm sarcastic
>>
>> Ciao
>> FF
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls