Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF

[Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>]

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

> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
> 
> 
> 
> 


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