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

["Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi at alcatel-lucent.it>]

Tom,

I am feeling very unconfortable with the way this discussion is progressing.

There was a reasonable request coming from the chair to investigate whether
there are implementations and/or deployment of RFC3429 and Y.1711. Most of the
people are fairly reporting the status of their implementations/deployments.

I do not see why comparing Y.1711 against LSP Ping fits into this thread.

In addition I fail to understand the value of arguing against an approved ITU-T
Recommendation (i.e. Y.1711) recognized by IETF (i.e. RFC3429) expecially now
that ITU-T and IETF are improving the collaboration among themselves.

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:33 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: mpls at ietf.org; 'Masayuki Takase'
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429
> 
> 
> 	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
> 

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