Subject: Re: Basic LDP Question

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 02:43:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

>:Ajay Simha writes:
>:
>: > For instance I did
>: > not see anyone mention things like QoS transparency that MPLS can
>: > achieve.
>:
>:diffserv is a much simpler and more scalable way to achieve qos than
>:mpls.  if you want to use mpls for qoq, you need to start playing atm
>:style vc came with p-to-p subscriber resource reservations.  and if you
>:want to really do it properly, like some atm switches from cisco did,
>:you need to implement per lsp queueing in your routers.  this is 2002
>:and i don't want to go back to 1995.
>:
>: > Sure you can monkey around with IP to make IP have
>: > everything that MPLS has. May be even a fixed length tag and call it
>: > something else :).
>:
>:i don't have any reason to start mimicking mpls with ip.
>:
>: > Why do it when this extension already exists as an IETF based
>: > standards where folks like us can debate issues and come up with
>: > solutions that are acceptable to most?
>:
>:because mpls is another control plane with all the complexity that comes
>:with it.  check this out:
>:
>:harjus:/home/ftp/internet-drafts% ls *mpls* | wc
>:    146     146    5619

You are abosultely right that there are way too many drafts. I guess all this
inovation as has come about because of MPLS. I'm not saying that MPLS is be
all end all. Don't you agree if folks tried to put frame relay or ethernet on
IP we would also have a burst of new ideas in the form of drafts?

-ajay

>:
>:-- juha
>:

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 08:56:44 +0300

Ajay Simha writes:

 > For instance I did
 > not see anyone mention things like QoS transparency that MPLS can
 > achieve. 

diffserv is a much simpler and more scalable way to achieve qos than
mpls.  if you want to use mpls for qoq, you need to start playing atm
style vc came with p-to-p subscriber resource reservations.  and if you
want to really do it properly, like some atm switches from cisco did,
you need to implement per lsp queueing in your routers.  this is 2002
and i don't want to go back to 1995.

 > Sure you can monkey around with IP to make IP have
 > everything that MPLS has. May be even a fixed length tag and call it
 > something else :).

i don't have any reason to start mimicking mpls with ip.

 > Why do it when this extension already exists as an IETF based
 > standards where folks like us can debate issues and come up with
 > solutions that are acceptable to most?

because mpls is another control plane with all the complexity that comes
with it.  check this out:

harjus:/home/ftp/internet-drafts% ls *mpls* | wc
    146     146    5619

-- juha