Subject: Re: [bmwg] RFC2544 Statement

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:20:42 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>
Al Morton writes:
>  
> >If you want you can mention OAM work as well as IPPM.  MPLS-TP loss
> >measurement (LM) OAM comes to mind for validation of SLA metrics
> >without adding traffic.  It is a highly accurate passive verification
> >tool with almost zero overhead.  There is other work going on for
> >measuring delay and jitter.  Just a suggestion.  Feel free to ignore.
>  
> I'll take a look at the TP Loss (again) soon.
> All passive measurement methods are not created equal...
>  
> Al

Al,

If you understand PPP LQM, then you'll understand LM OAM.

Curtis