I think that the conclusion in s.4, that this is the solution to problems of
cooperation, will turn out to be rather rose-tinted in years to come.
It virtually means that IETF stop working as an independent
standaradization organization and, considering continuous failures
of IETF to standardize useful protocols these days, is rather
I track the mpls-tp list and see two very different styles, of process, of
commenting, of consensus (know any other IETF lists where 10 successive posts
were each about one Megabyte in size?) which tells me that the differences
between ITU-T and IETF have just been moved to another forum.
MPLS failed merely because the concept of MPLS is broken from the
MPLS started with "topology driven with nested labels", which was
advertised to scale because of route aggregation.
However, to let senders specify inner labels, the senders MUST know
routing tables internal to destinations, which denys route
aggregation and dose NOT SCALE.
Later, people working on MPLS start saying TE.
However, before MPLS, TE means L1 TE to provide sufficient resouce
to L1 on which large traffic is expected.
There is no point to use MPLS as L2 forwarding is as expensive as
L3 forwarding and TE at L2 is mostly useless.
Ietf mailing list