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

["Shahram Davari" <davari at ieee.org>]

Ping,

My email was not about your invention (LSP-ping). I in fact like LSP-ping
and think it is useful. I was just answering Tom's claim that "Y.1711 has
nothing to do with MPLS OAM".

Shahram
. 

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ping
Pan
Sent: April-03-08 9:48 AM
To: Shahram Davari
Cc: 'Masayuki Takase'; mpls at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429

Have to bite:

Y.1711 may be the first to be defined, but LSP-ping was the first to get 
deployed and used to solve real problems. So the age, the complexity and 
the brand name sometimes do not matter much.

Why do we try this? (Maybe we have already). Let's lay out

- the problems that Y.1711 have solved where the existing mechanisms 
defined in IETF won't be able to address, and

- how serious those problems are.

Then let's move from there.

- Ping


Shahram Davari wrote:
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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