Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

[Jixiong Dong <dongjixiong at huawei.com>]

Hi Shahram, Hi Ping,

I agree with you. IMO, user OAM is transparency in PW, because it is user
traffic. Carrier OAM is pw segment OAM. SP OAM is end-to-end OAM.
In my ms-pw oam draft, I give a method to distinguish the different OAM flows.

Best Regards,
Dong

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari at pmc-sierra.com>
To: "'Ping Pan'" <pingpan at cs.columbia.edu>; "Florin Balus" <balus at nortel.com>
Cc: "pwe3" <pwe3 at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:17 AM
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary


> Hi Ping,
> 
> > (6) OAM and OAM interworking: How would it work? Actually, would 
> > carriers allow the OAM packets going over the boundary of the 
> > network? 
> > If I am a carrier, I probably will not allow some guys on 
> > either end of 
> > my network to run some performance monitoring tests. Then how 
> > do we get 
> > edge-to-edge OAM?
> > 
> 
> An OAM architecture similar to IEEE 802.1ag or ITU Y.17ethoam, might be
> useful. In these drafts the OAM flows are divided to 3 spaces:
> 
> - User OAM
> - Network Operator (Carrier) OAM
> - Service Provider OAM
> 
> Service provider contracts with a number of carriers to provide the service.
> Service provider is responsible for e-2-e performance, and has access to
> e-2-e OAM. While each carrier can only run OAM in its own network. This architecture
> requires a method to distinguish/filter these 3 types of OAM flows.
> 
> Yours,
> Shahram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3