On 4/18/12 14:17 , Thomas Narten 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.
It's always possible that the wg won't like what they have to say anyway.
>> 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
