Subject: [mpls-tp] Operator's support for TCM

From: "BUSI ITALO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:25:58 +0200

Despite the JWT, it is becoming clear that I have to look forward for
some transport operator willing to voice his view regarding the
requirements for TCM on the MPLS-TP mailing list.

At the last ITU-T meeting some major transport operator expressed
concerns on the fact that the validity of some transport requirements is
questioned and their removal from MPLS-TP proposed.

They have clearly expressed their need to have in MPLS-TP the same
capabilities that ITU-T has defined in G.8131, G.8132 and G.8114.

Although the need for TCM was not explicitly mentioned, this is a
functionality that ITU-T has defined in G.8114

I will further investigate and check for the TCM requirements with my
customers.

Of course this additional (and IMO unneccessary, because of the JWT
agreement) task will reduce the time I can spend in writing MPLS-TP
drafts.

Italo

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:36:42 +0800

ITALO:
  I  think it is reasonable and better for you to clarify which operator 
will voice and support the requirements for TCM on the mpls-tp. or else 
other people is diffcult to trust what you said.

regards
liu

"BUSI ITALO" <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2009-04-17 17:25

收件人
<[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
[mpls-tp] Operator's support for TCM

Italo
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:58:41 +0100

Italo,

wrote 17 April 2009 10:26
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls-tp] Operator's support for TCM
> 
NH=> Can I also ask that operators voice their opinions of whether TCM
needs to be applied to IP.  IP is a real top-of-stack network and
justifiably claim a need for UNIs/E-NNIs.....so, from simple logic, the
case for TCM must be stronger here.  It is not sensible IMO to ignore IP
in this discussion on the need for TCM.

regards, Neil

---

From: Maarten Vissers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:16:57 +0200

Neil,

I would expect that you get a requirement to support "TCM" (which is
"monitoring of end to end paths as well as parts of end to end paths") for
multi-operator IP VPNs (which are mp2mp IP transport entities). 

Regards,
Maarten

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: vrijdag 17 april 2009 11:59
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Operator's support for TCM

Italo,

> concerns on the fact that the validity of some transport requirements 
> is questioned and their removal from MPLS-TP proposed.
> 
NH=> Can I also ask that operators voice their opinions of whether TCM needs
to be applied to IP.  IP is a real top-of-stack network and justifiably
claim a need for UNIs/E-NNIs.....so, from simple logic, the case for TCM
must be stronger here.  It is not sensible IMO to ignore IP in this
discussion on the need for TCM.

regards, Neil

---

From: "BUSI ITALO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:26:27 +0200

Neil,

We are working on MPLS-TP and not on IP-TP

I think it is up to IP operators and not to transport operators to voice
their requirement, or lack of requirement, for TCM in IP.

Italo 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:59 AM
> To: BUSI ITALO; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] Operator's support for TCM
> 
> Italo,
>