[Chapter-delegates] MPLS and T-MPLS

[Franck Martin]

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?

What do you think?

After all, we are the Internet Society, not the Open Source Society 
(just being cheeky here).

Cheers
PS: I'm all for ODF

Narelle Clark wrote:
>   
>> From: Franck Martin
>> Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2007 5:44 AM
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html
>>     
>
> 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. 
>   

-- 
Franck Martin
ICT Specialist
franck at sopac.org
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070907/58b413ab/attachment.htm>