> Butch said:
> Yes.  I have said for over 2 years that MPLS is more a "marketing ploy"
> than a necessary technology.  I remember standing in front of Brad
> Belton's office discussing this exact subject.  MPLS is likely to be a
> "necessary" item for some JUST to be able to sell the same product.
> Cisco does this all the time.  They help corporations and government
> entities write up RFQs with requirements that include Cisco specific
> capabilities.  Really pisses me off sometimes.  :-)
> Butch,
I agree with much of your thoughts here but the one above does not seem
right to me. I read up on this some to make sure I was not mistaken. MPLS is
supported by many vendors and is being touted by many to be the replacement
for other platforms like ATM. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article
that Nathan had referenced which I believe substantiates that MPLS is an
open platform supported by multiple vendors:

"It (MPLS) was a Cisco proprietary proposal, and was renamed "Label
Switching". It was handed over to the
open standardization. The IETF work involved proposals from other
vendors, and development of a consensus protocol that combined features from
several vendors' work."

Obviously Cisco is used by so many that they have pull but they did not keep
MPLS for themselves. By making it an open platform they have taken the high
road I think. Had they not then I would be pissed to have it be part of RFPs
also. Please note that I prefer to use Imagestream and Mikrotik for all of
our routing work so I am not just trying to be Mr. Cisco here. In this
instance though I think Cisco was not out of line in their support for and
promotion of MPLS. I am guessing that the day Imagestream or Mikrotik
develops a protocol variant that becomes an open standard used by multiple
vendors that you will be very proud to tout it in your proposals.    :-)

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to