Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

From: Azhar Sayeed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:07:06 -0400

Hi, 

I support the publication of the draft as an informational RFC. This is a
good example of providing an avenue for debate and then agreeing to a
consensus on single solution and documenting it as a reference. The debate
in SDOs has been on for a long time and every time I only get one or two
examples of how a provider has deployed the alternative solution and hence
it becomes mandatory for all SDOs to comply.

To me those are bad choices made by people cognizant of the issues. These
are the risks you take when you deploy pre-standard technology and have to
rip it or migrate to standards based technology. Just because one or two
providers deployed it does not mean it becomes mandatory on the rest of the
world. The last time I checked there are more than 500 providers in the
world. 

One solution is all that is needed for an IOT and two solutions are very
expensive from a vendor point of view and from a provider point of view. I
am sure all vendors and providers agree. From a vendor point of view they
are expensive to build and from a provider point of view managing two
domains is not easy.

Now, no one is stopping people from inventing another protocol that looks a
lot like MPLS and behaves a lot like MPLS with "better OAM" characteristics
and then standardizing that protocol. I will fully support that protocol
except that it cannot be called MPLS. It is a new protocol.

Regards, 
Azhar Sayeed 
Cisco Systems Inc.