> And in that space, MPLS is rapidly catching up as an alternative to > ATM and raw SONET. It's no accident it's called "ATM without cells". > MPLS, and especially MPLS VPNs, do have more of a telco learning > curve than ATM.
At the risk of starting a religious war, I've never understood why MPLS is so IP-centric. It's not called IPLS, it's called MPLS. With only a few exceptions, most MPLS initiatives I see presume that devices are running an IP stack to handle control-plane mechanisms. MPLS in its original conception seemed to have the potential to be a perfect drop-in replacement for ATM. But only if MPLS incorporated all the ATM signalling parameters, which hasn't really been implemented (there has been some work done, but I would contend that the amount of IP-signalling work done and the amount of ATM-signalling work done is at least 10:1) . Instead, practically all MPLS interworking proposals for ATM presume that the ATM devices be upgraded with IP or somehow speak to another device that does ATM and IP/MPLS translation. Is this really necessary? Because of all the installed base of ATM out there, forcing them to do this interworking in order to incorporate MPLS just means greater resistance to it and ultimately a slower uptake of MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53816&t=53737 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
