RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["David Allan" <dallan@nortel.com>]

HI Nitin:

Thanks for replying....
<snipped>

> David, all that I am asking is that one can use the basic-bare-bones
definitions in lsp-ping to setup the Ethernet OAM 
> params. I am not talking about applicability nor I am saying that one
needs to use ping and trace based off lsp-ping for > PBB-TE LSPs. 

But this still requires implementing a new protocol where it does not
already exist, which also requires a *new* bare bones definition...

> We have a whole bunch of stuff defined in RSVP. Obviously some of them
are not applicable for GMPLS LSPs. But that does > not mean that we go
define G-RSVP (for GMPLS LSPs).

Isn't that CCAMPs mandate?
 
<snipped>

> I am not asking you to use lsp-ping for LB/LT. I agree that ethernet
OAM already has that and indeed once should use 
> that. I am just saying that the setup can be done using lsp-ping.

I think the point was GMPLS applies to a lot of technologies that cannot
do LSP-PING in the first place, which means such a signalling extension
will be required nonetheless...

<snipped>
> LSP-Ping is already non-IP from a *forwarding* perspective. LSP-Ping
has a reply-mode of *application channel* which can > be used for things
like bi-directional LSPs. So for MPLS-TP LSPs, the lsp-ping replies
would go on the LSP reverse path > (label-switched and not IP
forwarded).

OK, I can see that such an approach could be made to work and would be
desirable to some. On that basis, can I suggest you withdraw your
objections to the Eth-Oam draft and move the TP parts of this discussion
over to the MPLS list? That would seem appropriate...

Cheers
Dave