Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] [PWE3] FW: Changes to PW ACH Channel Type allocationpolicy

["BOCCI Matthew" <Matthew.Bocci at alcatel-lucent.com>]

Shane,

We are not proposing changing the allocation policy for the whole
registry here. We can allocate, say, 1024 channel types by the new
method, and leave the rest for IETF consensus.

Regards

Matthew 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane at castlepoint.net] 
> Sent: 02 October 2008 17:04
> To: Vishwas Manral
> Cc: Shahram Davari; BUSI ITALO; l2vpn at ietf.org; BOCCI 
> Matthew; mpls at ietf.org; ccamp at ietf.org; mpls-tp at ietf.org; 
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] FW: Changes to PW ACH Channel 
> Type allocationpolicy
> 
> Vishwas,
> 
> Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > Hi Shane,
> > 
> >> Also, let's take a step back here.  Wasn't the whole point 
> with the 
> >> joint ITU-T/IETF effort surrounding MPLS-TP to create an 
> environment 
> >> in which MPLS-TP could seamlessly interoperate within 
> (existing) MPLS 
> >> environments?  I thought a fundamental part of that work 
> is striving 
> >> towards creating a *standards-based* MPLS-TP data-plane, OAM, 
> >> signaling, etc. mechanisms.  IMO, Vishwas' proposal and Matthew's 
> >> proposal #2 seems to run contrary to that goal.
> > 
> > Thanks for the detailed mail regarding your point of view.
> > 
> > So if I got you right, your opposition to the idea I 
> proposed is based 
> > on the fact that you are against allowing any proprietary ACH code 
> > points as they would not be *standard based*. The options 
> mentionend 
> > by Matthew are however to address the request for *proprietary 
> > extensions*. Am I missing the point altogather?
> 
> Please note that I did not exclude Matthew's proposal #1 in 
> the response you quoted above.  However, I did recommend that 
> if the consensus was to adopt Matthew's proposal #1 I would 
> rather see it modified, so only a
> (small) subset of codepoints (not the whole range of ACH's) 
> were designated for "proprietary use", (still with expert 
> review).  Please refer back to my first e-mail on this 
> subject, where my position should be more clear:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg09945.html
> 
> -shane
> 
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls