""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip] > > And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to > be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > transition path. > Is a smooth transition possible at all? If, by transition, you mean running mpls on the atm gears, my impression was carriers seem not like messing their ATM network with mpls, there always be exceptions. I can see the financial gains of doing this is huge, but a smooth transition is just beyond my limited imagination. Let's hope the router vendors can eventually build routers as stable as ATM switches, IMHO, this could come before any smooth transition could be invented. My .02 Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > >> > > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > >> > > >> Chuck > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > corporation > > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will > be > > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54569&t=54507 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
