[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CCAMP drafts for adoption
I agree with Nitin and do not support the adoption of these drafts.
On 12/2/08 4:35 PM, "Nitin Bahadur" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Do not support either of these.
> From the oam-config-fwk draft:
>> A new useful application of RSVP-TE is OAM configuration
>> and control for transport networks.
> LSP-ping was designed as an OAM mechansim for MPLS LSPs. Why do we need
> another mechanism? What are the limitations of lsp-ping that warrant
> this new mechanism?
>> When RSVP-TE is used for LSP establishment it is desirable to bind
>> OAM setup to connection establishment signalling to avoid two
>> separate management/configuration steps
> draft-ietf-bfd-mpls specifies how to use LSP-Ping for automatic setup of
> BFD-based OAM.
> We should go along the same path for Ethernet OAM.