Subject: RE: on the mpls oam framework

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:26:17 -0800

Loa,

Could you please technically articulate were the disconnect is?
and why isn't it resolvable, so that it needs a new draft?
In other words please provide valid justification for your
request.

Thanks,
-Shahram

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 9:27 PM
>To: MPLS wg
>Cc: George Swallow; Alex Zinin
>Subject: on the mpls oam framework
>
>
>All,
>
>I read the mpls oam framework as it has been suggested in
>Dave Allans draft (draft-allan-mpls-oam-frmwrk) and also
>re-read the the mpls architecture document. I've the architecture
>authors to review the oam framework and received some feedback
>from them.
>
>It is my understanding that there is a serious disconnect
>between the architecture and oam framework, and I therefore
>want to restart the oam framework in a fresh document,
>with the undertanding that this document shall be aligned
>with the architecture.
>
>I asked David Allan and Tom Nadeau to take on the editorship
>for this new document, and hope to have positive answers from
>both of them before the mpls wg meeting in Minneapolis.
>
>/Loa
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:20:13 +0100

Sharam,

note that Neil, Dave and I agree on that the disconnect is there,
I'm not certain that they agree with how I described (but that
is also part of the disconnect :) ).

Anyway - I guess that the core of the matter is that the architecture
is written positioning mpls as a part of the ip protocol suite, while
the oam framework rather position it as a "newer and better ATM" that
necessarily needs to have all the features of ATM.

This shows up in a numbe of places, the concept of layers and levels
is, not what I see as useful in the type of IP network I've been
involved in.

The definition of "LSP" is not what is in the architecture document.

PHP is designed out by the oam framework, but an in by the mpls
architecture.

But you are misrepresenting me when you say that the differences is
not resolvable. In fact the proposal to start on a fresh document
is intended jsut to achieve that. I guess that if there are two people
representing two different ideas on a subject, the requirement that one
of the has to accept the ideas of the other to be part work seems to
be counter-productive.

Further if we have a "default" document in this case it should be the
architecture.

/Loa

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:12:08 -0500

>In other words please provide valid justification for your

	A quick read of RFC3031 will reveal the disconnects.

	--Tom

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:01:42 -0500

Loa,

The default is reality and reality seems to be that PHP is here and
PHP is not going away any time soon.  So far Dave and Neil have not
made a compelling case that their notion of an OAM framework has
benefits that justify a change to the architecture and with it a
change in the reality that the two equipment suppliers with highest
market share both rely on PHP and so do many others.

I'm personally not all that convinced about P-MP but I'm also not
ready to say it should be eliminated based on it not fitting into a
particular OAM framework.

The architecture document is both a document that though maybe not
perfect has been a basis of the work of this group and is a good
reflection of reality.  The OAM framework attempts to align the work
of the MPLS WG with conflicting work of the ITU which has been
repeatedly rejected by the MPLS WG.

I entirely agree with you that we don't need to change the direction
of MPLS to make it a "newer better ATM" and therefore having Thomas
and David try to work together to produce an OAM framework that is
consistent with the MPLS architecture is a worthy goal.

If David does not want to compromise, then perhaps Thomas should serve
as editor of an OAM architecture document for advancement by the WG.
If so, perhaps David can advance his OAM architecture as an
informational document outside the WG.

Curtis

---

From: Peter Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:54:06 +0000

Loa,

I think you have to be careful to NOT give the message "MPLS will NEVER evolve 
to address your new requirements" to network operators. Because if that is the 
message you are giving you are condeming a lot of vendors who are hoping to 
sell MPLS based solutions into the network operators/carrier space.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Willis		            | E-mail: [email-masked]
Chief Data Networks Architect	    | 
BT Group CTO                        |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:20:39 +0100

Peter,

of that is the impression you get I'm communicating badly,
"the message" I try to give is that we will evolve based on
known and agreed requirements.

/Loa

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:10:36 -0500

Curtis -

> particular OAM framework.

You need to re-read what Neil wrote.  

> Loa....you are misrepresenting my 'agreement on the situation'.   I =
> agree there is a problem.....but has it ever occurred to you that the =
> starting point may be wrong?  The problem is not that Dave's paper fails =
> to line-up with the MPLS arch papers, the problem is that the MPLS arch =
> (sic) stuff is itself architecturally broken......the mere act of =
> 'doing' mp2p and PHP does not bless them with arch validity please note. =
          ^^^^
>  You can't expect Dave to fix that.....no doubt you also saw Dave's =
> response.

He's talking about LDP/Unicast.  Which we use for everything except if
you *only* use TE in the core.  So his view of the world is much more
narrow than you imagined!

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:10:29 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, George Swallow w
> narrow than you imagined!

Right..  Sorry.  Amend my statement to "I'm also not ready to say we
should eliminate mp2p based on it not fitting into a particular OAM
framework".

LDP/unicast seems here to stay as well.

Curtis