The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Apr> msg00001



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

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt

  • From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:58:40 +0100
  • Cc: <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Thread-Index: AcQXnL5JXftVXqUpSbe4lDCxf0VfiQAIGr4g
  • Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id i318Ejn10832
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2004 07:58:45.0646 (UTC) FILETIME=[285AFAE0:01C417BF]

Matthew,

Matthew R. Meyer wrote 01 April 2004 04:26
To: Adrian Farrel

<snip> 

> Take those 3 vendors and you've got something approaching 100% of the 
> core router market.
NH=> Ergo my concern (in my response to Adrian on this thread) that the stds process should not become a retrospective rubber-stamping exercise for what the dominant players have implemented.  One can of course disagree with this view.....but then this questions the need for any stds bodies at all (except perhaps to give an illusionary air of democracy to the regime).

<snip>

> I do wonder though, why GMPLS needs a solution for 
> what seems to me an MPLS-only problem?  One isn't going to 
> allow multiple identical lambdas/channel briefly 'oversubscribe'
> a single wave/timeslot so I am probably missing something there.
NH=> I could not agree more.  Do not doubt your instincts as they are correct.  IP is not the same as MPLS is not the same as GMPLS.  I cap does not fit all here as I tried to explain breifly in my respose to Adrian.  There are 3 primary wide-area networking modes and they are very different.....and the differences are important.  One cannot, and should not, try and treat them all alike.....esp when the consequences lead to fundamantal modal arch violations from doing so.

regards, Neil