RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Actually, Cisco bought the ONS 15900 along with Monterey Networks for 500 million in August of 1999. That's what makes this a particularly interesting move by Cisco since this was an aquisition which places them in the market of one of the next big core technologies exactly following the corporate culture NRF mentioned. Core network technologies has always been their bread and butter and to see them dump the Monterey project after investing and aquiring the company just because of the economic slow down is questionable in my mind. Other companies have had it rough too. I've heard Lucent almost went bankrupt but as NRF pointed out they are still heavily investing in Lambda switching. It has been confirmed by the VP of Optical Networking that Cisco doesn't plan on reengaging the lambda switching market anytime soon. With a compound annual growth rate of 137% and an estimated 5.7 billion spent in optical switches by 2005 the question in my mind is...Is this an irresponsible move by a leader in the networking industry? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of NRF Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mike, I agree with you. cisco definitely made a fatal mistake here and leave a huge room for at least one company, Juniper. Well, I'm sure that everybody knows Cisco's corporate strategy has always been to try to figure out what's going to be hot, and then just acquire somebody. Sometimes it works (Grand Junction still being the best example), sometimes it doesn't. But I've never seen Cisco as much of a research-oriented company, at least not in the lines of Lucent, with its world-class Bell Labs, or Nortel. Rather, it is a sales/marketing driven company that also likes to play the acquisition card. So I'm sure that if and when lambda switching really gets big, Cisco will come calling, wallet in hand. The suits in Cisco must be thinking something like: This acquisition strategy has worked pretty well so far, so why not keep doing it? Of course, this strategy is not so easy to do when your stock price has crashed. Cisco better figure out how to get its market cap back up. Note - for would-be flamers - I am not commenting on whether Cisco's dumping of the 15900 was a smart or stupid thing. What I am saying is that doing so was perfectly in line with its corporate culture. And I'm sure we would all agree that it is extremely difficult for big companies to change their culture. FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6424t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Actually, Cisco bought the ONS 15900 along with Monterey Networks for 500 million in August of 1999. That's what makes this a particularly interesting move by Cisco since this was an aquisition which places them in the market of one of the next big core technologies exactly following the corporate culture NRF mentioned. Core network technologies has always been their bread and butter and to see them dump the Monterey project after investing and aquiring the company just because of the economic slow down is questionable in my mind. Other companies have had it rough too. I've heard Lucent almost went bankrupt but as NRF pointed out they are still heavily investing in Lambda switching. It has been confirmed by the VP of Optical Networking that Cisco doesn't plan on reengaging the lambda switching market anytime soon. With a compound annual growth rate of 137% and an estimated 5.7 billion spent in optical switches by 2005 the question in my mind is...Is this an irresponsible move by a leader in the networking industry? Much as I like Nortel, the True Leader is Mary. Mary had a little lambda... Shari Lewis and Lamdachop also presumably demonstrated optical access control. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6443t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
I don't think so, there really isn't a market for lambda routers at the moment (I think Lucent just sold its first Lambda Router, after over a year since the announcement). The money is still in selling T1's T3's, thus the demand is for edge products that groom T1/T3 into optical trunks. There just isn't much demand for products that switch wavelengths as there are minimal applications for the services those devices provide. Wavelength switches may take off in a few years, but the short term outlook isn't pretty. IMHO, Cisco decided to cut its losses on Monterey and keep its options open for the future, rather than continuing to sink money into a struggling technology. Irwin -Original Message- From: Michael Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] Actually, Cisco bought the ONS 15900 along with Monterey Networks for 500 million in August of 1999. That's what makes this a particularly interesting move by Cisco since this was an aquisition which places them in the market of one of the next big core technologies exactly following the corporate culture NRF mentioned. Core network technologies has always been their bread and butter and to see them dump the Monterey project after investing and aquiring the company just because of the economic slow down is questionable in my mind. Other companies have had it rough too. I've heard Lucent almost went bankrupt but as NRF pointed out they are still heavily investing in Lambda switching. It has been confirmed by the VP of Optical Networking that Cisco doesn't plan on reengaging the lambda switching market anytime soon. With a compound annual growth rate of 137% and an estimated 5.7 billion spent in optical switches by 2005 the question in my mind is...Is this an irresponsible move by a leader in the networking industry? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of NRF Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mike, I agree with you. cisco definitely made a fatal mistake here and leave a huge room for at least one company, Juniper. Well, I'm sure that everybody knows Cisco's corporate strategy has always been to try to figure out what's going to be hot, and then just acquire somebody. Sometimes it works (Grand Junction still being the best example), sometimes it doesn't. But I've never seen Cisco as much of a research-oriented company, at least not in the lines of Lucent, with its world-class Bell Labs, or Nortel. Rather, it is a sales/marketing driven company that also likes to play the acquisition card. So I'm sure that if and when lambda switching really gets big, Cisco will come calling, wallet in hand. The suits in Cisco must be thinking something like: This acquisition strategy has worked pretty well so far, so why not keep doing it? Of course, this strategy is not so easy to do when your stock price has crashed. Cisco better figure out how to get its market cap back up. Note - for would-be flamers - I am not commenting on whether Cisco's dumping of the 15900 was a smart or stupid thing. What I am saying is that doing so was perfectly in line with its corporate culture. And I'm sure we would all agree that it is extremely difficult for big companies to change their culture. FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6451t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: Much as I like Nortel, the True Leader is Mary. Mary had a little lambda... Mirror had a little lambda, its hue a ruddy glow And everyway the mirror faced, the lambda had to go... -- Someone approached me and asked me to teach a javascript course. I was about to decline, saying that my complete ignorance of the subject made me unsuitable, then I thought again, that maybe it doesn't, as driving people away from it is a desirable outcome. --Me Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6455t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] MPLS complements IP routing. Neither replaces the other. There might have been some arguments in that area when (my mind blanks--they were acquired by Nokia) introduced the first label switching machines, but the hardware and algorithms have caught up. There's a huge amount of FUD here, just as there is with respect to the technically meaningless term L3 switching. Ipsilon maybe? they developed the data-driven (rather than control-driven) Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol (IFMP). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6200t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... No. Ms.Radia's comments were absolutely correct at the time of her writing, she just could not say anything that had not happened while she wrote the book. Tag switching and other proprietary similar technologies, on which MPLS was built, were faster than IP switching when ip switching was way slower. When MPLS came out, the speed of ip switching was already greatly improved by new hardware. So MPLS's design and implementation not focus on beating ip switching on speed anymore. Traffic engineering, VPN(both cisco and juniper), integrating ip into ATM and DWDM are the arenas for MPLS, my opinion. KY So because Radia Perlman wrote what she wrote 2 years ago before most of these new hardware improvements were utilized by vendors, you could say that what she really did in her book was to correctly predict the future - that MPLS would have little speed advantage, and therefore would be used for traffic-engineering and VPNs (which I think is just another form of traffic-engineering). Then again, if anybody in the world has networking ESP (psychic friend's networking?) , Radia Perlman would be the one. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6202t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6203t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] MPLS complements IP routing. Neither replaces the other. There might have been some arguments in that area when (my mind blanks--they were acquired by Nokia) introduced the first label switching machines, but the hardware and algorithms have caught up. There's a huge amount of FUD here, just as there is with respect to the technically meaningless term L3 switching. Ipsilon maybe? they developed the data-driven (rather than control-driven) Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol (IFMP). Ipsilon, indeed. Remembered it just as I was going to sleep, naturally. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6208t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6232t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6238t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
I'll try again... Yes: It is/can be used for all types of different functions. BUT each of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6243t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
On a related subject that Howard brought up regarding GMPLS what does everyone think of Cisco's decision to dump the 15900 Wavelength Router? It was slated to be one of the first commercial Multi Protocol Lambda Switching boxes using SRP however, on April 4th it suddenly dissappeared from Cisco's web site. They've stated that due to the economy it was not profitable to continue development of that product and that Cisco would instead pursue more immediate demands such as metro DWDM. In my opinion removing yourself from the Lambda Switching market is not a wise direction for the future. The idea of unifying the intelligence and services of todays layer 3 (and up) boxes with the speed and redundancy of next-generation optical platforms is extremely profitable in the near future. This should be where the market leaders in networking spend most of their RD on. I've heard Lucent and Nortel (among many others) are very active in developing intelligent optical switching. Any other opinions? -Michael Cohen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Chandler Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives
RE: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
On a related subject that Howard brought up regarding GMPLS what does everyone think of Cisco's decision to dump the 15900 Wavelength Router? It was slated to be one of the first commercial Multi Protocol Lambda Switching boxes using SRP however, on April 4th it suddenly dissappeared from Cisco's web site. They've stated that due to the economy it was not profitable to continue development of that product and that Cisco would instead pursue more immediate demands such as metro DWDM. In my opinion removing yourself from the Lambda Switching market is not a wise direction for the future. The idea of unifying the intelligence and services of todays layer 3 (and up) boxes with the speed and redundancy of next-generation optical platforms is extremely profitable in the near future. This should be where the market leaders in networking spend most of their RD on. I've heard Lucent and Nortel (among many others) are very active in developing intelligent optical switching. Any other opinions? Yes, Nortel is very active. Since I'm directly involved in Nortel product planning, I am reluctant to speculate in public who should be doing what. But GMPLS certainly seems to be one important trend, but routing won't remplace it -- and vice versa. -Michael Cohen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Chandler Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
As I am with Lucent, who is also an active player and competitor of Nortel, in the optical arena: http://www.lucent.com/press/0501/010515.nsb.html Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On a related subject that Howard brought up regarding GMPLS what does everyone think of Cisco's decision to dump the 15900 Wavelength Router? It was slated to be one of the first commercial Multi Protocol Lambda Switching boxes using SRP however, on April 4th it suddenly dissappeared from Cisco's web site. They've stated that due to the economy it was not profitable to continue development of that product and that Cisco would instead pursue more immediate demands such as metro DWDM. In my opinion removing yourself from the Lambda Switching market is not a wise direction for the future. The idea of unifying the intelligence and services of todays layer 3 (and up) boxes with the speed and redundancy of next-generation optical platforms is extremely profitable in the near future. This should be where the market leaders in networking spend most of their RD on. I've heard Lucent and Nortel (among many others) are very active in developing intelligent optical switching. Any other opinions? Yes, Nortel is very active. Since I'm directly involved in Nortel product planning, I am reluctant to speculate in public who should be doing what. But GMPLS certainly seems to be one important trend, but routing won't remplace it -- and vice versa. -Michael Cohen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Chandler Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
CEF is supposed to be a FIX!? Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: David Chandler To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6296t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Mike, I agree with you. cisco definitely made a fatal mistake here and leave a huge room for at least one company, Juniper. I do not know anything inside and just talking about this off the top of my head, if Juniper can recruit those optical RD people from cisco, and developed its own lamdarouter, cisco will loose its core market forever. I have heard some big carriers are replacing their GSR with Juniper, if Juniper can use their credit and make some solid optical routers, the rest of market will be shared by Lucent, Nortel and some others, there is no place for cisco at the core. KY Michael Cohen wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On a related subject that Howard brought up regarding GMPLS what does everyone think of Cisco's decision to dump the 15900 Wavelength Router? It was slated to be one of the first commercial Multi Protocol Lambda Switching boxes using SRP however, on April 4th it suddenly dissappeared from Cisco's web site. They've stated that due to the economy it was not profitable to continue development of that product and that Cisco would instead pursue more immediate demands such as metro DWDM. In my opinion removing yourself from the Lambda Switching market is not a wise direction for the future. The idea of unifying the intelligence and services of todays layer 3 (and up) boxes with the speed and redundancy of next-generation optical platforms is extremely profitable in the near future. This should be where the market leaders in networking spend most of their RD on. I've heard Lucent and Nortel (among many others) are very active in developing intelligent optical switching. Any other opinions? -Michael Cohen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Chandler Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] of those functions already has an established (and often better) solution. Would any vendor be recommending MPLS if it did not require an upgrade? $ I vote:Floor Wax :- PS: Where can I find the article? DaveC Irwin Lazar wrote: A collegue of mine wrote an article some time back entitled MPLS: Desert Toping or Floor Wax MPLS originally was created to solve the problem of slow, software-based routers. Hardware-based (aka Layer 3 switches) routers alleviated that requirement. Since then MPLS is being used for all sorts of different functions including: - traffic engineering - IP-based virtual private networks - L2 encapsulation within L3 networks - Reservation of L1/2 resources by L3-based control mechanisms IMHO, the basic goal of MPLS is to converge the various L1/2-specific control mechanisms into a single, unified control plane capable of provisioning and managing a path across a packet-based network infrastructure. But who knows where we will be in five years. Irwin -Original Message- From: David Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] No Way!!! The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:- MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... DaveC NRF wrote: Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on n
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mike, I agree with you. cisco definitely made a fatal mistake here and leave a huge room for at least one company, Juniper. Well, I'm sure that everybody knows Cisco's corporate strategy has always been to try to figure out what's going to be hot, and then just acquire somebody. Sometimes it works (Grand Junction still being the best example), sometimes it doesn't. But I've never seen Cisco as much of a research-oriented company, at least not in the lines of Lucent, with its world-class Bell Labs, or Nortel. Rather, it is a sales/marketing driven company that also likes to play the acquisition card. So I'm sure that if and when lambda switching really gets big, Cisco will come calling, wallet in hand. The suits in Cisco must be thinking something like: This acquisition strategy has worked pretty well so far, so why not keep doing it? Of course, this strategy is not so easy to do when your stock price has crashed. Cisco better figure out how to get its market cap back up. Note - for would-be flamers - I am not commenting on whether Cisco's dumping of the 15900 was a smart or stupid thing. What I am saying is that doing so was perfectly in line with its corporate culture. And I'm sure we would all agree that it is extremely difficult for big companies to change their culture. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6348t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testingdoc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6151t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? Great for what purpose? One of the problems is lots of presentations, certainly the ones I've gotten unmodified from Cisco training (not engineering), emphasize the forwarding aspects of MPLS, without much discussion of LSP setup protocols (LDP, RSVP-TE, and CR-LDP, and I am _not_ going to touch that religious war), or the relationship of these path setup protocols to IP routing. MPLS complements IP routing. Neither replaces the other. There might have been some arguments in that area when (my mind blanks--they were acquired by Nokia) introduced the first label switching machines, but the hardware and algorithms have caught up. There's a huge amount of FUD here, just as there is with respect to the technically meaningless term L3 switching. The main focus on basic MPLS these days is traffic engineering, VPNs, and the ability to simplify the network with stacked labels. I don't know anyone whose technical opinion I respect who would argue that it's significantly faster in the forwarding plane. Another motivation is GMPLS, which extends use of the MPLS setup protocols to other sub-IP transmission systems, including optical and TDM. I'd hardly argue that Juniper is beating Cisco in this area, since Cisco introduced RFC 2547 VPNs, which are dominating carrier VPNs. Nortel is also very aggressive in MPLS, especially the GMPLS extensions for optical network management. I await with interest what comes out of the newly chartered IETF PPVPN working group, to see if some of the alternative VPN strategies gain traction. 2547 works, but it isn't perfect, especially with its impact on BGP. A great audience comment at the Atlanta NANOG, with respect to 2547, was if this is the answer...it must have been a pretty stupid question. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6158t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... A great audience comment at the Atlanta NANOG, with respect to 2547, was if this is the answer...it must have been a pretty stupid question. Howard, I remember you quoted this as a comment for virtual router design, which I think is more appropriate. KY Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6160t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. KY Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6161t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much faster? Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. KY FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6162t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much faster? Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. You have to assess how important raw forwarding performance is, given some of the bandwidths in use or nearly in use. If you can use GMPLS to control 10 or 40 Gbps lambdas, or multiple lambdas on a fiber, you're not doing per-packet forwarding. One of the reasons that ATM and its cell tax are less important is that the queueing you might see at OC-3, which is alleviated by small cells, is lost in the noise at OC-192. Packet forwarding rates are one aspect of a network, but not the be-all end-all. Filtering is going to be done at label edge routers, and filtering and traffic classification aren't within the scope of MPLS. KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. Very reasonable observations on her part. Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. KY Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6167t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Hey Howard, sorry if my last few posts have been an imposition on you. When I said please respond, what I should have said was that I really hope you can respond, and I sincerely apologize for using improper tone of language. Thank you for your kick-ass responses. NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much faster? Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. KY FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6168t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
No. Ms.Radia's comments were absolutely correct at the time of her writing, she just could not say anything that had not happened while she wrote the book. Tag switching and other proprietary similar technologies, on which MPLS was built, were faster than IP switching when ip switching was way slower. When MPLS came out, the speed of ip switching was already greatly improved by new hardware. So MPLS's design and implementation not focus on beating ip switching on speed anymore. Traffic engineering, VPN(both cisco and juniper), integrating ip into ATM and DWDM are the arenas for MPLS, my opinion. KY NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much faster? Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. KY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... NRF wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering... (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. KY FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6171t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
