Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

All,

In the discussions the IETF and the ITU-T have had on T-MPLS we have
discussed the intended use for label 14 and the different documents
where this has been specified.

As a side effect we've also started to ask ourselves if there are any
implementations and/or deployments that uses label 14.

A quick survey among known implementers of MPLS has not shown any
implementations/deployments.

Since one of the approaches discussed in the Joint Working Team
context is a solution that requires the allocation of a reserved
label and reserved labels are a scarce resource we'd like to know
if it possible to redefine label 14 for that particular use.

There are still technical issues to be sorted out with the suggested
approach, but in the mean time we would like to know if it is possible
to deprecate RFC3429 and redefine the OAM Alert Label.

The questions is: "Are there any implementations/deployments of Y.1711
or the OAM Alert label as it is allocated in RFC3429; and is there
objection to deprecating the protocol as it stands today?"

ITU-T has sent out a question along the same lines, see the included
mail below.

Please respond to the mpls working group mailing list or to the mpls
working chairs directly. As usual non-responses will be counted as
that there is no implementation/deployment.

Loa and George


------------------- included mail ------------------------------------

All users/implementers of recommendation Y.1711,

Currently the Joint Working Team of ITU-T and IETF experts is
considering the options of using IETF mechanisms to provide
OAM for T-MPLS.

One possibility is the following mechanism:
-------------------------------------------
Push/pop a label at the MEP/domain boundary.

This makes the OAM alert label directly visible at the
sink MEP.

To make the OAM label visible to a MIP the TTL in the server
(lower) layer is set by the MEP to expire when the OAM frame
reaches the intended MIP.

The OAM alert label will point to an “opcode” at the bottom
of the stack.
------------------------------------------

This behaviour (when the OAM alert label is received) is not
consistent with the behaviour currently defined in Y.1711 when
label 14 is received.

*QUESTION* are there any users/implementers of the current Y.1711
concerned with this change in behaviour?

If there are no concerns then recommendation Y.1711 can be
withdrawn or revised to describe the desired behaviour (described
above).

Please send me (or this list) your response ASAP.

Kind regards, Huub van Helvoort, your rapporteur.

--
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se