<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
While it is nice for chapters to handle the local ISO regarding ooXML,
we could as chapters talk to the local ITU-T regarding T-MPLS?<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
After all, we are the Internet Society, not the Open Source Society
(just being cheeky here).<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
PS: I'm all for ODF<br>
<br>
Narelle Clark wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid0605563022BED04A9E82A8B583140BB493C35E@msgprdmbxw002.optus.com.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Franck Martin
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2007 5:44 AM
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html">http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks Frank!
What a pile of silliness!!!!
In summary, the ITU has proposed one standard for "T-MPLS" and the IETF
has "MPLS" and, while it's not mentioned, the IEEE has "PBT". T-MPLS is
supposed to integrate well with ASON and GMPLS (both unfinished optical
equipment standards) that will **ideally** allow you to signal all sorts
of exciting things to the equipment and hence get different bandwidths,
QoS etc on demand. The big gap with Ethernet at present in carrier
networks is a serious lack of OA&M features, ie operations,
administration and maintenance - not traditionally one of the IETF's
strong points.
The commentary so far has indicated compatibility between T-MPLS and
MPLS, but I hadn't realised they were using the same ethertype as an
existing MPLS [1] type to depict something else again.
It certainly seems the ITU has tried to make a standard when they
haven't read the other standards already in place, indeed are widely
implemented around the world. Or at least not argued their cause through
the existing standards.
It's an entirely silly concept that 'it won't matter as T-MPLS will only
be used in carrier networks'. Do they think carriers don't use MPLS??
How funny.
So any gains achieved by using low cost transmission gear doing a classy
ethernet will be completely negated by the fact you can't plug them into
an MPLS network without extra encapsulation and segregation... There
goes the lower header size of T-MPLS over PBT...[2] [3]
Narelle
[1]
Personally I always thought MPLS was a bit of a kludge, but that is my
purist thinking preferring 'real IP addresses' (ie public) and the
topological elegance of a well routed network... But I suppose I'm used
to it now and see the many benefits of layer 3 VPNs... But that pseudo
wire business clearly shows someone has their OSI model upside down
(layer 2 over layer 3 running on another layer 2!).
[2] 20b vs 64b in PBT
[3] I could have completely misread all of these... LOL
Narelle Clark | t: +61 2 8082 7035 |
Vice President ISOC-AU
"When it comes to technology, most people over-estimate it in the short
term and under-estimate it in the longer term." Arthur C. Clarke [no
relation]
****DISCLAIMER****
This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
e-mail from your system. You must not disclose this email to anyone
without express permission from the sender. The contents of all emails
sent to, and received from, Optus may be scanned, stored, or disclosed
to others by Optus at Optus' discretion. Optus has exercised care to
avoid errors in the information contained in this e-mail but does not
warrant that the information is error or omission free.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:franck@sopac.org">franck@sopac.org</a>
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard
</pre>
</body>
</html>