RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Eric...can you please explain how GMPLS fits against this statement please?

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
> Sent: 05 March 2002 14:52
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02 
> 
> 
> 
> Shahram> What is  the difference between ATM,  FR, or any  CO 
> technology and
> Shahram> MPLS 
> 
> Well, for  one thing, MPLS  isn't a CO  technology.  It's got 
> lots  of stuff
> that doesn't really  make sense from a CO perspective.   Of 
> course, when the
> CO  guys  run  across  these  features  (multipoint-to-point, 
>  php,  liberal
> retention, independent  mode, equal  cost load balancing,  
> dynamic rerouting
> with no signaling,  ttl, lack of packet sequencing,  IP 
> control plane, etc.,
> etc.) they assume that those features are there by mistake!
> 
> This misconception  that MPLS  is a CO  technology, shared  
> as it is  by the
> "pure  IP" crowd and  by the  ITU/ATM crowd,  is the  source 
> of  much wasted
> time.  
> 
> MPLS is  actually an IP-derived technology that  facilitates 
> the application
> of  certain   circuit-like  characteristics  to  IP  
> networks.    As  an  IP
> technology,  the usual  IP diagnostic  tools, such  as ping  
> and traceroute,
> should be applicable.   That's what this whole useless  
> discussion is about.
> One  the one  side are  people  who think  that IP  networks 
> are  inherently
> unmanageable (after all, they don't  follow ITU standards), 
> and on the other
> side are people who think that the IP-based paradigms are the best. 
> 
> It is true that  MPLS can be used to provide something  which 
> is very like a
> CO network,  but it  doesn't have to  be used  this way, and  
> usually isn't.
> Those of use  who are not particularly interested in  CO 
> networks just don't
> want to be saddled with the  legacy CO mechanisms.  
> Presumably, if all these
> legacy CO mechanisms were  so great there would not be such  
> a great rush to
> IP. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>