The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] MPLS Performance analysis.....
Sean Doran <smd@ebone.net> writes: > Several people write: > > > [lots of commentary about how wonderful MPLS is at making forwarding fast] > > You are analysing the performance of MPLS using the wrong metric. > I think MPLS performs exactly as intended. > Ipsilon basically died, and not even Nokia could revive it. > UUNET found a new layer-2 religion, essentially killing backbone ATM. > Many companies are distracted from actually learning how to do IP routing. > > Score: MPLS 3, Rest Of World 0. As a relative newcomer to the church of MPLS (I have read the prolific works-in-progress of AWD at any rate...), it seems to me that the alleged performance benefits are not so much supposed to be found in the label-switching over packet switching paradigm-shift per se, but in the de- coupling of end-to-end path-selection from the extremely dynamic hop-by-hop routing information, and the more stable re-routing of end-to-end constraint-based paths thus enabled (but without ATMs slow-moving standardisation process and bandwidth-overhead related baggage). On the other hand, destination-prefix based IP routing is quintessentially a hop-by-hop algorithm that doesn't concern itself with end-to-end constraint-based path- selection bar a few TOS bits, so maybe you care not about CBPS? M.
|
|