Subject: Re: L2VPN (Re-)charter: VPLS OAM

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:02:11 -0700

Florin/Ali,

  Good to know that there is agreement here :-) The goal for VPLS-OAM should
be to start from where we are today, see what is needed, identify the best
solution and then proceed to make enhancements (Ethernet OAM/MPLS-OAM) based
on solutions identified.

  Note that in some cases multiple OAM mechanisms can *peacefully*
co-exist....like today...some customers use Ethernet OAM (802.3ah/802.1ag)
and some use BFD (Ethernet OAM is L2 while BFD is application layer).

  Not looking to start a debate here, but when (in the future) we go ahead
and start looking at solutions, we should look at things from not only an
architectural perspective, but also from a service provider's perspective as
what kind of an OAM solution helps them most. At times we have seen that
service providers come up and say that the OAM solutions do not meet their
needs...which translates to a "call-for-action for service providers" to
participate in solutions development and raise their concerns earlier than
later.

Thanks
Nitin

On 4/2/08 12:10 PM, "BALUS Florin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In L2VPN WG we should start from the premise that PWE3 and IP/MPLS PSN
> infrastructure is in place so the effort should be focused on extending
> the available tools - e.g. PW3 or IP/MPLS OAM, VPLS LDP MAC Withdraw -
> not on adapting native services to do the job. We need to make sure this
> is clearly reflected in the charter.

>>> I think the important aspect that Shane is trying to capture in the
>>> L2VPN charter is that our focus is to address required
>> extensions to 
>>> the mechanisms specific to the PSNs (IP/MPLS) and PWE3
>> infrastructure 
>>> that is common to both VPLS and VPWS.
>> 
>> So, we should capture it as such as I suggested rather and
>> avoid having a vague statement.