""Kent Yu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""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.
Actually, I am thinking more of a situation where instead of buying more ATM switches, carriers will instead buy multiservice switches that are fully MPLS capable, but run a kind of MPLS that is fully compatible with ATM signalling (which unfortunately does not exist right now). Carriers are always refreshing their existing ATM networks (because stuff gets old and fully depreciated), so if stuff needs to get replaced anyway, wouldn't it be nice to replace it with this kind of switch I'm talking about? Eventually, over a period of years, the entire ATM infrastructure would be fully replaced with MPLS. But the only way to do this smoothly is if those MPLS switches were a full and complete drop-in replacement for ATM. > > 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. It's not just a matter of making routers more stable, although that's part of it. It's also a matter of making LSP's as reliable as ATM VC's. > > 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=54575&t=54507 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
