RE: LMP fraud

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Greg,

> For example for fault localization the SONET/SDH framer and
> packet mapping chips on your router most likely supports section,
> line and path AIS (downstream alarm indication signal) and line
> and path RDI (sent upstream to indicate remote defect indication).

Fault localization is just *one* of LMP's many functions, and SONET
is just *one* encoding that can be used.

> I'm not sure why the rest of us should be burdened with supporting LMP.
> Maybe in fact the confusion is over the state of the art in transport
> network technology and standards,

The confusion is yours, as you insist that you are "burdened with
supporting LMP".  If you think you don't need to support LMP, then
don't.

>                                   of which, a group such as
> CCAMP, if it is to venture into this area, should be much more aware.

CCAMP "ventured" into this area over two years ago.  Most of the folks
working on LMP do know a bit about transport networks.

As I see it, in your opinion, LMP is an unnecessary protocol in a forum
that knows little about transport.  Meantime, you've proposed various
fixes to what is in your opinion an unnecessary protocol for over two
months now, and there hasn't been much support for your fixes.  So, at
this point, what are you trying to achieve?

Kireeti.