RE: MPLS,IETF, etc..

> From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu 
> [mailto:Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu]
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 1:07 AM
Hi Valdis,

> Now as for MLPS, it sounds to me like a good idea for its original
> design goals, but is being promoted for so many other things that
> many people are confused - Does it *really* slice, dice, *and*
> make Julienne fries?
Yes, I think that was the gist of Mike O'Dell's critique...and I
have to agree that the rapid and broad expansion of goals for MPLS
is a threat to the success of its fundamental purpose.

I do believe that the MPLS -> MPlS -> G-MPLS expansion to
accommodate PSC and TDM -> LSC -> FSC devices is a beneficial
and natural extension.  The benefits offered by the traffic
engineering opportunities would be hard to pass up too.

IMHO, Worrying about L3 protocols other than IP seems fairly
pointless and L2->MPLS->L2-only scenarios also seem like
"make work" to me.  I am sure that others hold differing
opinions on these matters, with good arguments.

The basic point, I think, is that any substantive positive
work of synthesis (e.g., the L3/L2 synergy afforded by
fundamental MPLS) always provides a new plateau for re-thinking
how many related things are done.  This is a phenomenon that
needs to be managed...in this case, by the IETF and WG leadership.

Thanks,

BobN