The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00152



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

{Possible Spam} Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>
  • Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:05:27 -0500
  • cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com, dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com, gash@att.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET


In message <3E67A7F8.127F442@alcatel.de>, Gert Grammel writes:
>  
>   2. The addressing issue you've raised is related to UNI which was so
>      far (until recently) not part of the CCAMP work. So I don't see
>      here that you were forced to use IPv4 Addresses.
>  
>   3. About RSVP vs. PNNI I am not religious, why not using SS7? In any
>      case I don't think that the IETF is the right place to discuss on
>      PNNI. Honestly I don't know which one is 'better' but I don't
>      believe that it is always the best protocol that will win at the
>      end. If you have one why do you need ye t another one (and in
>      IETF we had already two ;-)?
>  
>   4. I don't see your point on running a routing protocol on L1/0 why
>      no just using RSVP-TE signaling and omit OSPF?


Please.  Don't use GMPLS or OSPF or IPv4 (or IPv6) or RSVP/TE.

ASON implemented over PNNI on SS7 would be perfect, but OSI, ATM or
X.25 would be just as good if you prefer those.  This would entirely
disentagle the IETF and ITU wrt ASON.

Curtis