Subject: RE: Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:38:30 +0300

Loa, George and all,
ECI Telecom has implemented ITU-T recommendation Y.1711 using 
Label 14 as defined in RFC 3429 in its XDM (TM) products family. 

The corresponding products have been deployed in live 
networks, and their Y.1711-related functionality is now in 
operational use.

Based on this, we (ECI) object to deprecation of the Label 14 
allocation that is currently defined in RFC 3429 and suggests using
a different reserved label value for T-MPLS needs.

Regards,
                   Sasha 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]; pwe3; [email-masked]; L2VPN; ccamp
> Cc: Ross Callon; David Ward
> Subject: Question on the status of Y.1711 and RFC3429
> 
> All,
> 
> In the discussions the IETF and the ITU-T have had on T-MPLS we have
> discussed the intended use for label 14 and the different documents
> where this has been specified.
> 
> As a side effect we've also started to ask ourselves if there are any
> implementations and/or deployments that uses label 14.
> 
> A quick survey among known implementers of MPLS has not shown any
> implementations/deployments.
> 
> Since one of the approaches discussed in the Joint Working Team
> context is a solution that requires the allocation of a reserved
> label and reserved labels are a scarce resource we'd like to know
> if it possible to redefine label 14 for that particular use.
> 
> There are still technical issues to be sorted out with the suggested
> approach, but in the mean time we would like to know if it is possible
> to deprecate RFC3429 and redefine the OAM Alert Label.
> 
> The questions is: "Are there any implementations/deployments of Y.1711
> or the OAM Alert label as it is allocated in RFC3429; and is there
> objection to deprecating the protocol as it stands today?"
> 
> ITU-T has sent out a question along the same lines, see the included
> mail below.
> 
> Please respond to the mpls working group mailing list or to the mpls
> working chairs directly. As usual non-responses will be counted as
> that there is no implementation/deployment.
> 
> Loa and George
> 
> 
> ------------------- included mail ------------------------------------
> 
> All users/implementers of recommendation Y.1711,
> 
> Currently the Joint Working Team of ITU-T and IETF experts is
> considering the options of using IETF mechanisms to provide
> OAM for T-MPLS.
> 
> One possibility is the following mechanism:
> -------------------------------------------
> Push/pop a label at the MEP/domain boundary.
> 
> This makes the OAM alert label directly visible at the
> sink MEP.
> 
> To make the OAM label visible to a MIP the TTL in the server
> (lower) layer is set by the MEP to expire when the OAM frame
> reaches the intended MIP.
> 
> The OAM alert label will point to an "opcode" at the bottom
> of the stack.
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> This behaviour (when the OAM alert label is received) is not
> consistent with the behaviour currently defined in Y.1711 when
> label 14 is received.
> 
> *QUESTION* are there any users/implementers of the current Y.1711
> concerned with this change in behaviour?
> 
> If there are no concerns then recommendation Y.1711 can be
> withdrawn or revised to describe the desired behaviour (described
> above).
> 
> Please send me (or this list) your response ASAP.
> 
> Kind regards, Huub van Helvoort, your rapporteur.
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
>                                             [email-masked]
>