RE: Re: GMPLS Last Calls

[ananth.nagarajan@mail.sprint.com]

This is to the same individual who sent me a private e-mail with 
similar content as was sent to Eric Gray:

Please don't misinterpret my GMPLS concerns as concerns about MPLS as a 
whole.  Please note that I am very supportive of MPLS, and in fact, I 
like the very aspects of MPLS that you point out as bad things (MPLS 
for TE, BGP-MPLS and Virtual Router-based VPNs etc.)  I also have no 
problem with GMPLS as the protocol of choice for the optical control 
plane (In fact i think it is a very logical idea).  My e-mail was to 
point out, what carriers may think as deficiencies with GMPLS for the 
optical control plane.  I welcome comments, like Bala's and others' 
clarifying the different features that address our concerns.  After 
all, voicing concerns and getting clarifications on a protocol is 
supposed to be an educational process as well.  (Doesn't mean that all 
the concerns that had been expressed in my e-mail have been resolved, 
but those will be addressed via a separate e-mail).

Cheers,
Ananth

-----Original Message-----
From: eric.gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:06 AM
To: mpls; ccamp
Subject: Re: GMPLS Last Calls


Anonymous,

    Look, I know that these IETF mailing lists are prone to flame wars
and that many people prefer to be silent 'lurkers' as a result.  But, 
unless
people are willing to come forward with their comments directly, it is 
not
very likely that they will be heard.  Also, in spite of Randy's 
comments,
people DO want to hear from members of companies.  It is easy to express
high sounding, but meaningless, opinions when posting as 'an 
individual' -
especially when posting from an anonymous free E-mail account (as so
many people do these days).

    Understand that - if you come forward with an opinion or idea that 
you
and your colleagues have come up with together - your opinion/idea will 
have
only the weight of an individual opinion.  In theory, your opinions and 
ideas
should be considered by IETF participants solely on their merit and not 
as a
result of who you work for (or what your position is in the IETF).  
Also, in
theory, it is understood that your individual opinions and ideas do not 
reflect
the opinions and ideas of your employer.  And most of us (wink, wink) 
believe
this too.

    Personally, I think there is entirely too much censure (read 
'flames') going

on.  If you and your colleagues each individually express the same 
opinion,
you will hear comments like 'well, one company heard from'.  On the 
other
hand, if one of you expresses a common opinion, he/she will be censured 
for
not expressing an individual opinion.  It may seem like you can't win, 
but you
have to try.   And - until some IETF 'king' decides to stoop to literal 
censure
- your opinions will be heard in spite of the flames... :-)

--
Eric Gray

'Anonymous' wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I agree with you whole heartedly.  We must have the inputs from the 
carriers
> and not from the vendors alone.  Some vendors are pushing MPLS, GMPLS 
now,
> like this are the best ideas since sliced bread.  But others (Global
> Crossing's Plonka, and Ananth, etc.) have pointed out in different 
forums the
> problems with MPLS.
>
> Issues that we have found relate to -
>
> 1.  MPLS is not for QoS (See first paragraph of Chapter 6 of Yakov 
Rekhter's
> book: MPLS - TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS, MK Publisher), Yakov says, 
" To
> many people, QoS is the driving factor behind MPLS.  This is actually
> something of a misconception......QoS is not a very strong reason to 
deploy
> MPLS..."
>
> 2.  To do VPN with MPLS with extensions is a bad idea also since BGP 
is a
> routing protocol that changes state quite often and to use it for VPN 
with
> MPLS tags is not really a very smart solution as a recent comm related
> magazine article points out (I don't have it here but I can provide 
it if you
> are interested),
>
> 2.  If not for QoS, then is it for TE?  As others have said on this 
MPLS
> thread, you can easily do TE with a host of network management tools
> available out there - if not real-time, for sure, near-real-time.
>
> 3.  Other issues pertaining to MPLS are - scalability: explicit path, 
RSVP,
> CSFP, all found not scalable from the dawn of these technologies (see 
Nortel
> site slides on MPLS for one confirmation), and finally
>
> 4. No one addresses the fact that tagging and variable packet sizing 
enroute
> for a packet is extremely high memory and processing hog (hardly 
acceptable
> for the hundreds and thousands of older routers out there) not to 
mention the
> issues of label explosion, TTL, and risk of MTU violation and 
subsequent
> fragmentation and retagging of packets.
>
> My colleagues and I wonder why no one speaks up.
>
> (Please feel free to use these items in the thread if you don't use 
my name.
> Thanks.)
>
> (Anonymous)
>
> Eric Gray wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >
> >     Is this one of your usual insightful comments?  Let's see what 
our
> > studio audience has to say - Bzztzzt!  Apparently that was a wrong
> > answer.  :-)
> >
> >     Repeatedly we ask for input from carriers.  We get some and we
> > hear that we're only interested in hearing from individuals?  As 
Lloyd
> > said, interesting...
> >
> > --
> > Eric Gray
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > > These are the collective opinions of me and my colleagues
> > >
> > > as the ietf is composed of individuals, i have not read your 
irrelevant
> > > message.  should you have personal expertise you wish to share, i 
would
> > > be very inteested in hearing it.
> > >
> > > randy