[lacnog] FYI: Estandarizacion de MPLS

Tomas Lynch tomas.lynch en gmail.com
Mar Mar 1 18:15:33 BRT 2011


No entiendo por qué dos protocolos distintos de OAM pueden "jeopardize
the globally interconnected Internet" Seguramente es mi ignorancia de
OAM pero ¿no es un protocolo que usa internamente cada red/AS? Si no
lo fuera, seguramente todos los proveedores de equipos soportarán los
dos (si, un poco ingenuo esto pero posible).

Es decir, entiendo que la ITU haga estas cosas, siempre lo hicieron,
pero más allá de lo político, ¿en qué afecta operativamente a nuestras
redes? Links a Wikipedia, RFCs, etc. son bienvenidos. Gracias,


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando en gont.com.ar> wrote:
> Fuente: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3295
> ITU decision Q&A
> What is MPLS?
> Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a networking standard, created
> by the IETF, that assigns labels to data packets, which can then operate
> across multiple different protocols. Forwarding or switching decisions
> for MPLS packets from one network node to another are made on the basis
> of the label (i.e., without requiring equipment to examine the packet’s
> content) facilitating easy to create end-to-end circuits. MPLS is
> commonly used to create Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), and it can be
> used to deliver different levels of quality of service (QoS) for
> different types of data. It is also gives service providers flexibility
> in routing; for example, to avoid broken links or failures.
> What is the IETF’s role with respect to MPLS?
> The IETF defined the MPLS specification, as part of the overall Internet
> technology specifications, which include the Internet Protocol version 4
> (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).
> What is OAM?
> OAM stands for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance; it is
> essentially the set of tools that assist an operator in managing and
> troubleshooting a network. This includes everything from ping and
> traceroute to SNMP, NetConf, and a variety of other management tools.
> What has happened recently?
> At a meeting that ran late into the evening on Friday 25th February 2011
> in Geneva, one of the ITU’s technology focused study groups, the ITU-T
> Study Group 15, determined a Recommendation that defines operations,
> administration and management (OAM) for MPLS transport networks. The
> determined Recommendation is at odds with an IETF standard, in spite of
> an agreement put in place by the ITU and the IETF two years ago to avoid
> such an outcome.
> Why does this action matter?
> By deciding to initiate its own non-interoperable MPLS technology
> development, the ITU has created a situation where, in the future there
> will be two groups of MPLS products that will not work together. While
> the impact may not be immediate, ongoing evolution along this path will
> jeopardize the globally interconnected Internet.
> Haven’t these international organizations worked together to develop
> MPLS standards and technologies?
> Yes. Over the last few years, the ITU and the IETF have successfully
> collaborated on work in this field. Several years ago, both
> organizations created a joint working team (JWT) to examine the
> feasibility of developing a single, collaborative solution to MPLS
> transport requirements.
> The JWT provided a report that stated not only that a single solution
> was possible but also confirmed that it was possible to extend the
> existing MPLS architecture to meet additional requirements.  The JWT
> report went on to recommend that protocol development for this enhanced
> MPLS, to be known as MPLS-TP, should be undertaken by the IETF. Both
> organisations subsequently endorsed these findings and formally accepted
> the JWT report in December 2008.
> Regarding the MPLS OAM, the agreement based on the JWT report also
> stated that both organizations are able to work in this field; but with
> the fundamental agreement that each would deliver mutually compatible
> technologies.
> What is likely to happen with two non-interoperable standards are developed?
> If both technologies are deployed, it is likely that there will be
> confusion; if only one is deployed, the existence of the alternative is
> irrelevant. In this instance, there are believed to be commercial
> products in development for both proposals, so confusion appears inevitable.
> Is there a commercial reason for the ITU to create a separate standard?
> Was the organization responding to customer demand?
> The organization is driven to respond to its membership’s demands,
> expressed through contributions.  Certain members chose to develop this
> competing technology in the ITU, developing a second solution, instead
> of just one as recommended by the Joint Working Team (JWT).
> What role does the IETF play in Internet standards development?
> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the world’s premier
> Internet standards developer. Its mission is to make the Internet work
> better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that
> influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
> Why are global standards so important?
> The Internet we know today could not have come about without open,
> interoperable, global standards. The availability of open standards
> means that anyone, anywhere in the world can design products,
> applications and technologies that enhance the Internet’s functionality.
> What about multi-stakeholder collaboration in standards development?
> The Internet Society believes that any interested parties, individuals
> or organizations should be able to contribute to standards development.
> In fact the IETF ensures that any interested person can participate in
> its work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on
> the issue. We believe that this collaborative approach leads to the
> development of an Internet that delivers the maximum value.
> Did the IETF participate in the ITU-T SG15? Who made the decision?
> The Internet Society is the organizational home for the IETF, and the
> IETF participates through the Internet Society’s ITU-T sector
> membership.  In that role, the IETF/Internet Society spoke against this
> action.  Ultimately, the decision was made by a vote. Only ITU member
> states (not Sector Members) were allowed to vote.
> How has this sort of disconnect between the IETF and ITU been handled in
> the past?
> This action is without precedent.
> What will the IETF do?
> The IETF will complete its work on a MPLS OAM specification. In the
> ongoing pursuit of a globally interoperable solution, the IETF continues
> to gather transport requirements and work to extend IETF MPLS
> forwarding, OAM, survivability, network management, and control plane
> protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF Standards Process.
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando en gont.com.ar || fgont en acm.org
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog

Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG