-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of >>> use >>> (targeted LDP) is already described in RFC 3036. The FECs are >>> different, but >>> the FEC TLV was defined in such a way as to be extensible. >> >> And when you want to do this inter-domain? Everything else seems to >> have made it's way into BGP so I think that Pekkas concerns are >> valid... > > That's only because the IETF hasn't made security easy enough, light > enough, or > something. Now some people use the argument that everything should go > into BGP > because "opening another port into the provider network is a security > breach." > Why is port 646 (LDP) any more insecure than port 179 (BGP)?
Well, I think it's more to it than this. BGP doesn't traverse firewalls, at least not in most cases. I think the reason more and more is being put into these protocols is because "they are there". It's simply easier than thinking about the implications of doing this. >>> >>> not >>> necessarily go down well with you either, but think of MPLS as a >>> logical FR. >>> Providers do not want to change their infrastructure, e.g., replace a >>> FR cloud >>> with an ATM cloud, then with SONET or GigE. That's mega-expensive. >>> By >>> abstracting the L2 using MPLS, they can provide the L2VPN service >>> without >>> wholesale infrastructure replacement. >> >> Most of these providers have bought what their vendor told them to >> buy, >> but let's not go into that here. >> Somehow I didn't think this comment would go unnoticed. ;-) > > Sheesh! No, let's go there. You're talking about my potential > customers, and I > want to know if they really are so dense that I shouldn't have been > spending all > this time working on a protocol - I could have just given them a > couple of > high-priced tin cans and a piece of string. Notice that I have been one of those customers. Actually one of the largest outside the US. I have spent more time listening and talking to vendors on these issues than I like to think about. What struck me was how often vendors would come and tell me that provider Y bought this, so this should work for you to. When you then asked the vendors to go the economics of these decisions, and also the economics of the alternatives - you get everything from false and fabricated figures to vendors who simply can not answer. I actually remember very few occasions when I got a full explanation of why a certain technology would help me and where I could see the benefits. > Who exactly the IETF is going to be providing protocols for? For > protocols such > as these, it is the providers who deploy them. You claim that most of > the > providers have little or no discernment. Let's give credit to the > providers. > There are a large number of them who know what they are doing. Many > of them > participate in the standards. Providers go with technology that is a) cheap b) hight margin. Did providers start selling MPLS based VPNs (L2 & L3) because the demand was so huge? No, some providers and vendors created the demand. For some providers this works very well and fitted the strategy. Yes, there are providers who work on standards in the IETF. Unfortunately I think they are way to few though. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBPvFLR6arNKXTPFCVEQJ3LgCgzDrvaeUi0j/xWKhBhPNWic9fC2oAoMEj sTC9ToVkbZP6CRHO/q1uXp64 =rSyl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
