Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF

[Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>]

personally I'm not too worried either way whether the IETF works on 
GMPLS or not.  But in any case I don't think anyone in the IETF was 
suggesting using GMPLS as a mechanism for changing the forwarding plane 
of SDH or OTNs?

Giles

neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:

> Come on guys...you cannot say this and still allow IETF to countenance GMPLS
> work on SDH/OTNs.  It also presupposes one has agreement on some quite
> fundamental networking principles that *have* to embrace cnls, co/pkt-sw and
> co/cct-sw, and to date I am not comfortable I can 'trust' one body to create
> the required networking solutions I need.
> 
> regards, Neil
> <snip>
> Giles Heron wrote 06 March 2002 23:17
> 
>>George Swallow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Could you please clarify option (1) a bit more? If this route is
>>>>taken, still cooperation is needed between ITU and IETF. For example
>>>>ITU may need MPLS signaling extensions. Also in some cases packet
>>>>processing may need to be aligned between ITU and IETF in order to
>>>>avoid conflicts. For example ITU may consider an MPLS 
>>>>
>>path-trace that
>>
>>>>uses TTL expiration, which requires a TTL expired MPLS packet to be
>>>>forwarded to MPLS OAM module, while GTTP considers sending MPLS TTL
>>>>expired packets to ICMP/GTTP module. There needs to be a 
>>>>
>>coordination
>>
>>>>between IETF and ITU in order to find a common method which could
>>>>determine whether a packet should be forwarded to OAM or ICMP/GTTP
>>>>module.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's precisely issues such as these that lead me to believe that it
>>>would be best if *only one* standards body owns a core technology.
>>>Certainly other bodies should be free to create applications, define
>>>extentions, and do implementation agreements.  But when it come to
>>>something a central as the basic forwarding plane, one group alone
>>>should handle it.
>>>
>>>Allowing another body to redifine core functions WILL lead to
>>>interoperability problems.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>I'm not sure which of Scott's options this corresponds to, though!  I 
>>don't want to see the IETF working on MPLS OAM as per option 2, but 
>>option 1 seems to be a step down the road of allowing the ITU to 
>>"co-own" MPLS?
>>
>>Giles
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
=================================================================
Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
=================================================================