Mark:
Independent of the process and culture questions there are some technical issues to be addressed independent of the solutions, we're a few steps short of :
1) We require a mechanism to distinguish OAM flows in PWs. The discussion is moving in a direction whereby there is a requirement to support multiple flows or combinations of the same (LSP-PING, Y.1711, other) depending on operator sensibilities.
2) The mechanism needs to work and have useful OAM characteristics (aka fate sharing) in the presence of all known (or alluded to) ECMP mechanisms (which I believe uniquely impact PWs over MPLS unless folks have bizzare plans for L2TPv3 ;-). This means no reserved labels or appearance as an IP packet directly as MPLS/PW payload for any OAM tools, or aliasing as an IP packet.
IMHO this pushes us directly into the MPLS PID space as the only tractable compromise solution that meets the criteria above (we needed more header bits somewhere and it has to be somthing new :-( ). It complicates life as PW control words now pretty much become mandatory.
This has a number of benefits as it can also apply to MPLS as a layer independent of the PW application, so it would appear that both MPLS and PWs in general have a mechanism for muxing OAM (and possibly control) flows with payload.
So the above being said, some practical steps that facilitate getting to your proposal are:
1) Agree on the above requirements
2) Devise a converged MPLS/PW PID approach that permits multiple OAM tools to be employed over PWs and LSPs
3) Get the requisite missing PIDs from IANA for tools we wish to have as candidiates
cheers
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Seery [mailto:mark@mseery.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:27 PM
> To: danny@tcb.net; jtpugac@qwest.com; stbryant@cisco.com
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com
> Subject: [PWE3] Implementation agreement for Y.1711-like OAM
> approach to PWE/MPLS (was: Is PWE a layer - thread)
>
>
> Jack,
>
> If enough carriers and vendors are interested in
> pursuing this, then I think what you suggest would be
> very beneficial to the industry. It is possible
> another organization like the MPLS Forum is doing this
> - I don't know because I haven't been involved in it -
> I have copied Andy in case he knows (Andy we are
> discussing things such as applying a Y.1711 aproach to
> MPLS/PWE OAM, bounding the number of layers that it is
> applied to, and FR/ATM/MPLS OAM interworking).
>
> I suspect that because the real solution that some
> have expressed is applying this mechanism to MPLS and
> not to PWE, then this is the wrong working group to
> ultimately resolve this problem in. The best we can do
> within this working group is get in the way of
> something that is seen as undesirable at another
> "layer" - that being PWE.
>
> But before progressing this idea I would like to
> direct a few questions to the chairs: Danny, and
> Stewart.
>
> Danny/Stewart,
>
> 1) A Y.1711 approach to OAM seems not to be consistent
> with the way the IETF has historically approached
> solutions to these types of problems. As such, what is
> your view on whether a proposal such as this would be
> acceptable to the IESG, even if a rough consensus within the
> WG was achieved to progress it for PWE?
>
> 2) Is the development of an implementation agreement
> consistent with the current charter of the working
> group.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> --- Jack Pugaczewski <jtpugac@qwest.com> wrote:
> > Then this looks like a great forum to get ideas out
> > and explore the proper
> > means for implementation aggrements. Now is the
> > time to define these
> > mechanism between Layer 2 (Frame Relay, ATM,
> > Ethernet, etc.) and MPLS. This
> > functionality will be essential in the deployment of
> > a quality network that
> > can be properly and efficiently maintained.
> >
> > PJMWBGJJREGTATALDBJHJHSLDHGSDWJAMY
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>