> The IETF has a very long history of pushing back on multiple redundant > solutions to the same problem. > There are a great many cases of ADs, working group chairs, and others pushing > quite hard > to prevent multiple solutions when one would work fine.
I haven't seen this in the OAM work so far. PWE's VCCV has 3 or 4 different channels (code named CC types) and 3 or 4 different OAM mechanisms (code named CV types). And each of these has several variants and most have several possible encapsulations. Similarly in the MPLS-TP work we have a large number of options. For example, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv has 3 different encapsulations (LSP-ping UDP/IP packet in MPLS, LSP-ping packet in UDP/IP in GACh, and "raw" LSP-ping packet in GACh with a new channel type). Why is it that no-one seems to object to a plethora of possible options for anything except the inner-most payload format? Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
