I was looking forward to the answer to this one.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Seery [mailto:m_seery@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: tnadeau@cisco.com
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Re: PWE OAM Resolution / MPLS PID
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think that we need to define
> more than one mechanism for the reasons I have
> explained my my prior posting. My customers certainly
>
> don't want more than one mechanism. Also, before any
> conclusion is drawn, I suggest asking the WG for consensus on
> such a decision.
>
> --Tom
>
> MS=> So now we get in to the old what is a major
> problem. Dave has asserted that Y.1711 requires
> meaningful less processing than PW VCCV. This is
> considered important in the mode where OAM is being
> run x/sec on every LSP in order to identify defects
> and suppress alarm storms.
>
> Tom, Can you please comment on how you see the
> processing difference and whether you think it
> would/would not make a difference if running OAM in
> this way.
>
> More generally, do you assert that PW VCCV has
> equivalent functionality to Y.1711 including the
> generation of FDI etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>