On 4/18/12 2:17 PM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 vast majority of data centers in the world are run by Enterprises. The
people who run these data centers have little time nor interest in
participating in the IETF. Speaking as a vendor who talks with these
Enterprise data center operators, they just want interoperable multi-vendor
solutions. They also have little interest in replacing all the data center
networking equipment with MPLS capable gear. As far as I know, they
universally use VLANs and IP.
>> 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
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
