Re: CCAMP drafts for adoption

[Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>]

Do not support.

-shane


On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:

>    I agree with Nitin and do not support the adoption of these drafts.
>
>    --Tom
>
>
>
> On 12/2/08 4:35 PM, "Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> > > > draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
> > > > draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Nitin