The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Aug> msg00208



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

consensus to make draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt a TEWGitem?

  • From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:06:13 -0400
  • Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, te-wg@UU.NET, mpls@UU.NET


> > reality of the Juniper implementation. This is not the reality of what the
> > rest of the world uses. Furthermore, it does not necessarily contain the
> > operational reality of MPLS features that other LSR vendors are currently
> > deploying due to its incomplete nature.
>
>Ah yes, I see the disconnect now.
>
>I am coming from the reality of the operators world, who have to use these

         You are coming from the reality of a rather small operator
world that only uses Juniper boxes in their network. I am
trying to speak for those operators who I have spoken with, who
are in the majority. These folks have networks which are not comprised
of a single vendor's devices. This group manages networks comprised of
boxes from many vendors and would specifically like to use a single MIB
to do this. It is an operational nightmare to have to figure out which
vendors boxes (and perhaps which versions of those boxes) use which
standard MIB. In these cases your Juniper-specific solution just will
not work for the reasons which I and others have outlined about 10 times
today. I hope that people are seeing this situation for what it really
is.

>things on a daily basis to keep a network up and running vs the reality of
>those vendors who think they know better than we what we want.

         If I understand you correctly the, "reality of those vendors who
think they know better than we what we want" means not exclusively using
Juniper boxes. If I am understanding you correctly, then this sounds okay
to me. Remember, you are free to deploy whatever you want in your network.
Bear in mind that you are in the minority of operators. We all know what
the reality of the situation is not a homogeneous network of LSRs. For
this reason, the majority of operators (and all of the ones which I personally
spoke with today) want to use a single, standard (i.e.: non-proprietary)
MIB to manage all of the *different* LSRs that they have deployed in their
networks.

         --Tom