Just for the record - i was against doing MPLS in Pluris boxes. There's a much better way to do traffic engineering using Pluris' load-distribution trick. I guess marketing won. --vadim
I would like to get a poll on how targeted LDP sessions (and hierarchical tunnels) and MPLS data path tie together.
Bora Akyol, Pluris http://www.pluris.com
I don't think the MPLS idea was bad at whole and disagree with Vadim here; if I objected MPLS this was due to the opinion MPLS is the way to route IP over ATM, and this is the only way to provide QoS... On the other hand, it's dont clean if pre-calculated traffic engeneering is better than dynamic routing (with embedded load balancing). But I clearly understand why TELCOm and big providers ask just MPLS (exactly they do not need MPLS but they need traffic engeneering). Alex. /who had a chance to try do this things in Pluris last year -:)/ On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:12:30 -0700 From: Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Targeted LDP and Hierarchical LSPs in MPLS networks
Just for the record - i was against doing MPLS in Pluris boxes.
There's a much better way to do traffic engineering using Pluris' load-distribution trick.
I guess marketing won.
--vadim
I would like to get a poll on how targeted LDP sessions (and hierarchical tunnels) and MPLS data path tie together.
Bora Akyol, Pluris http://www.pluris.com
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Vadim Antonov