The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <0536FC9B908BEC4597EE721BE6A3538904EF3489@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.system
host.net>, neil.2.harrison@bt.com writes:
> 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 t
> he dominant players have implemented.  One can of course disagree with this v
> iew.....but then this questions the need for any stds bodies at all (except p
> erhaps 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 a
> ll here as I tried to explain breifly in my respose to Adrian.  There are 3 p
> rimary wide-area networking modes and they are very different.....and the dif
> ferences are important.  One cannot, and should not, try and treat them all a
> like.....esp when the consequences lead to fundamantal modal arch violations 
> from doing so.
> 
> regards, Neil


Neil,

AFAIK We do still believe in running code and we don't vote or pretend
to be a democracy but we do also believe in rough consensus.

There are standards bodies that design by committee and then vote.
Just a reminder - This isn't one of them.

Regards,

Curtis