The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <B9571FDEBD3DD21181E500606DD5EE050E891C66@mbddmknt01.hc.bt.com>, nei
l.2.harrison@bt.com writes:
> Curtis Villamizar Sent: 18 December 2001 02:28
> <snipped to 1 issue>
> > > > I have no idea what "playing field levelling upgrade" you 
> > are talking
> > > > about.  Did some MPLS equipment fail to implement IP or ICMP?
> > > 
> > > No, exactly the opposite, ICMP is the incumbent and 
> > implemented solution,
> > > which is why some folks who've already implemented it find 
> > it so attractive
> > > ;-) 
> > 
> > I thought that is what I said.  It is attractive because deployed
> > equipement can support it and it has no technical drawbacks over the
> > alternative except perhaps religious objections.
> > 
> > Designing protocols to keep a level playing field for the clueless has
> > never been a goal.
> NH=> Curtis, this might come as a bit of shock....but this is actually one
> of *the* major goals of operators out there, ie reducing opex costs by
> dumbing-down the skill levels needed to run networks.  Opex costs are a
> major cost line (I've seen figures of approaching 50% of network ownership
> over 3 years). To do this we need simple management/diagnostic tools that
> point the Ops user towards the problem and do things automatically. Are you
> not aware of this requirement from operators?  Its not clear to me how Ping
> addresses this.....in the CV stuff this was a key goal.

The context of the discussion was more along the line of "dumbing down
new protocols for the benefit of equipment providers who have not
implemented or inadequately implemented existing protocols".

Making protocol behavior easy to diagnose and equipment easy to use
has always been a goal but that wasn't the topic of discussion.

> regards, Neil

Curtis