a node might be simpler but the system composed of a graph of suvch
nodes more complex - you (as switch or router vendors) might get to
make your h/w or s/w simpler at the level of forwarding, bu the overal
syusytem that manages routes and traffic might be less simple and
(therefore) more failure prone ....
van jacobson's keynote at SIGCOMM 2001 (last week in san diego) made
this point very clearly.
local optimsiations often aren;t, globally.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
com>, "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" typed:
>>> From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:29 PM
>>
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>> Simplicity, in this case, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>>There is certainly some universal truth in that statement.
>>
>>> I don't get why label swapping is any simpler than hop/hop forwarding.
>>
>>It's simpler, IMHO, because it accomplishes more and does so in
>>a way that is globally beneficial.
>>
>>That is, MPLS (in its fundamental goals) goes a long way toward
>>integrating L3 and L2 in a way that leverages the strengths and
>>discounts the weaknesses of the two paradigms:
>>
>> L3/routing/packet/connectionless
>> L2/switching/circuit/connection-oriented
>>
>>The concept of scaling hop/hop forwarding via more capable hardware
>>has its benefits (mostly of the short-term economic variety...which
>>can be quite powerful, I agree), but is in the long run (I believe)
>>inferior (in terms of scalability and synthesis, at least) to a more
>>fundamental architecture/software solution.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>BobN
>>
cheers
jon
