Kireeti.
Even though I don't think reviving CR-LDP and RSVP-TE history will get us anywhere, there should always be the chance to offer customers the black model T. the existence of two protocols here have proven to be useful.
Regards;
Osama Aboul-Magd
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station "C"
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1Y - 4H7
Tel: 613-763-5827
e.mail: osama@nortelnetworks.com-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:04 PM
To: Jamoussi, Bilel [BL60:1A00-M:EXCH]
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Optical Link InterfaceHi Bilel,
> [Bilel Jamoussi] John, you seem to have a very narrow view of MPLS
> applications. The market has settled on RSVP-TE in ONE of the many MPLS
> applications -- namely Traffic Engineering of an IP network --It's irrelevant what application RSVP-TE fits in. RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
do the same thing in slightly different ways.In an ideal world, CR-LDP as an extension of LDP would have been
the way to go. It's funny that you should be arguing on the other
side now -- let's do NTIP (read RSVP-TE) instead of LMP-WDM (read
CR-LDP) which is just an extension of LMP (read LDP) which nobody
needs anyway (read "TE is the only MPLS app"). Such is life ...> The (I)SPs
> that deployed it did not have a choice from their vendors.Guilty as charged. We gave them black model Ts, and they liked them.
They didn't ask for any other colors, and aren't asking now, apart
from idle curiosity.> Also, the market has 2 routing protocols in the IGP: OSPF and IS-IS -- The
> market prefers competing solutions to get the best of breed.All the ISP folks that I know who had to make a choice say that
the process of choosing is mostly non-technical, and very much a
big pain.The data I have indicates that the market wants competing
implementations of the same standard, not competing standards.
That's where the real value of "best of breed" lies.Kireeti.