Dean Pemberton wrote:

I'm in favour of the standard Randy Bush reply...

*walks to the mic and starts talking in a slow soft voice which never stays that way for long* "Randy Bush IIJ. We have a process for this. We do this today. It has been working for us for years. GET OVER IT!!"

Dean

On 2/03/11 6:49 AM, Andy Linton wrote:

...

I think that we should be very clear in any statements that we make that our view is that the IETF is the arbiter of standards for the Internet and that while we welcome any input that the ITU has to make to that standards process we would be very unhappy to see any steps to see competing standards emerge. But we've seen this before. The most recent previous case I can think of is IETF TRILL vs. ITU 802.1aq. As with MPLS, it's not obvious that these are standards for the Internet as opposed to standards for something else.

- Donald Neal -- Donald Neal |"Maybe your mail is being rejected as spam," | she suggested. "Send us copies of all High Performance Computing | messages you didn't receive including The University of Waikato | their IP addresses." - Robert X. Cringely

I haven't been following the MPSL OAM stuff. In the field of Ethernet OAM, IEEE 802.1ag and ITU Y.1731 are mostly compatable with differences in object names. Y.1731 provides extra features to 802.1g, such as performance management. Does anyone one the list have a snappy summary of the differences between Ethernet OAM and MPLS OAM? Jonathon -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Alastair Johnson Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:10 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] [isoc-advisory-council] URGENT UPDATE- Statement relating to today¹s ITU-T SG15 MPLS development decision On 3/1/2011 12:07 PM, Donald Neal wrote:

But we've seen this before. The most recent previous case I can think of is IETF TRILL vs. ITU 802.1aq. As with MPLS, it's not obvious that these are standards for the Internet as opposed to standards for something else.

That would be the IEEE for 802.1aq. It's also not the first time competing standards have happened - including within IETF itself. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog This email and attachments: are confidential; may be protected by privilege and copyright; if received in error may not be used,copied, or kept; are not guaranteed to be virus-free; may not express the views of Kordia(R); do not designate an information system; and do not give rise to any liability for Kordia(R).

More from ISOC on this debacle here... Keith

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Anya Chambers Date: February 28, 2011 7:07:35 PM EST To: staff(a)elists.isoc.org Subject: [Staff] NEWS RELEASE and Q&A on ITU decision

Dear all

You may have seen a technically focussed statement issued on Friday relating to the ITU's decision on MPLS development.

Please find below a press release issued today and designed both to appeal to a wider, less technical audience and to address some of the issues raised in the ITU's own announcement today.

You can find it on our website here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3297

We have also created a Q&A relating to the ITU decision - you can find it here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3295

Regards

Anya

Internet Engineering Task Force and ITU Diverge on Internet Standard

Parallel standards development poses threat to future Internet health

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA – 28 February 2011 – theInternet Society, the world’s trusted independent source of Internet leadership and theInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the premier developer of Internet standards, announced plans for the continued development of the IETF’s Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) standard.

In the ongoing pursuit of a globally interoperable solution, the IETF announced that it continues to gather transport requirements and work to extend IETF MPLS forwarding, Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM), survivability, network management, and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF standards process.

This announcement comes on the heels of a decision taken at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) last Friday to move ahead with parallel technology development for OAM in MPLS transport networks. This step, over time, will affect the flow of Internet traffic, as separate standards will lead to products that are not able to interoperate.

Russ Housley, IETF Chair, commented; “The Internet we know today could not have come about without open, interoperable, global standards. I am surprised and disappointed by the action taken by the ITU. Collaboration on MPLS transport profile specifications have taken longer than expected, but the result is quality specifications, and many vendors are implementing them.”

“The Internet is an unprecedented success thanks to open, globally interoperable standards,” added Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “This action takes us away from the path of global interoperability. It will have a detrimental effect on the long term health of the Internet, and reduce the benefits to all of us as users. It is imperative that the IETF continues to move forward to develop the MPLS standard in the appropriate way, to ensure the continued health of the Internet as a source of innovation for the future.”

For more information on the technologies relating to this ITU decision and its implications – read the Q&A

Anya Chambers Internet Society

mobile: +1 224 321 0378 web: www.InternetSociety.org twitter: InternetSociety

What will the Internet look like in 10 years? Watch the trailer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OInTXcZ4HZM

For more information: www.internetsociety.org/scenarios

On 2/03/2011 10:03 a.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 2011-03-02 09:10, Alastair Johnson wrote:

...

On 3/1/2011 12:07 PM, Donald Neal wrote:

...

But we've seen this before. The most recent previous case I can think of is IETF TRILL vs. ITU 802.1aq. As with MPLS, it's not obvious that these are standards for the Internet as opposed to standards for something else.

That would be the IEEE for 802.1aq.

It's also not the first time competing standards have happened - including within IETF itself.

As far as I know, at least considering the last 15 years where I have personal knowledge, it is the first time that another standards organization, having completed a firm liaison agreement with the IETF about who does what, has blatantly reneged on that agreement.

Topics like MPLS, TRILL and a lot of stuff about how IP runs over 3GPP/4G/LTE will always be on a boundary. It's a sad day when we can't rely on good faith agreements about this.

However, on a more positive note: IMHO, operators getting together to agree on a common technical position is the strongest possible message to vendors. Ultimately it's what the vendors can sell that matters, not what the ITU says.

Therefore, my suggestion is that operators should get their heads together (on a non-commercial basis, obviously) to come out with a joint statement about their preferred direction for MPLS OAM in future RFPs.

Bria _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3475 - Release Date: 03/01/11