Hi Stewart.
> I do not know whether we need IP, MPLS or both in this case,
> and unfortunately I am not sure how we get firm objective
> evidence. However we need to be careful that on the one
> hand the charter does not preempt an objective decision, and
> on the other hand does not create a mechanism whereby the
> WG spends a lot of time on technology to support minority
> deployments.
I am very much concerned about this. I know that this point is not
shared by all, but for the DC folk I've talked to (and there are
others I've talked to that say *exactly* the same thing), MPLS/BGP is
simply a non-starter.
I know that me saying that won't convince those that disagree with
this premise.
One of initial deliverables of the WG is to do requirements gathering
and a gap analysis. We will have the above conversation then for sure.
But I am also worried that the voices of vendors could easily drown
out the voices of operators. The IETF gets little enough direct
particpation from operators as it is.
> The specific problem is with the ambiguity of the word
> "or" since it may bind us to doing both even if the
> evidence supports the need for only one (of type currently
> unknown), or it may force us to choose when the market
> is split and we need to support both.
> My hope was that "layer 3" could be taken to include
> IP and MPLS in such a way as to allow us to make a
> more considered decision of {IP, MPLS, IP and MPLS}
> when we have more evidence.
IMO, saying L3 is enough.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
