The MPLS WG Archive

[Hummel Heinrich <Heinrich.Hummel@icn.siemens.de>]

Just my contribution to the jackpot for finding a sexy term which replaces "Generalized MPLS":   "Orbit MPLS".

The word "Orbit" may express "very generalized", is   short and it popped up in my mind because the orbit is explored by means of lightwaves.

Heinrich

heinrich.hummel@icn.siemens.de


> -----Urspr> üngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:	Dawkins, Spencer [SMTP:Spencer.DAWKINS@fnc.fujitsu.com]
> Gesendet am:	Mittwoch, 27. September 2000 15:42
> An:	'IETF MPLS mailing list'
> Betreff:	RE: Trying to be clearer about Generalized MPLS and MPLambdaS
> 
> If all that's required for a sexy marketing term is a non-alphanumeric character, how about we
> 
> - change the name of Generalized MPLS to Multi-link-type And MultiProtocol Label Switching, and 
> 
> - change the abbreviation to M&MPLS?
> 
> (With apologies to Mars, the makers of some very fine chocolate candies called M&Ms!)
> 
> Just KIDDING... But it WOULD mean I don't have to remember how to type "lambda" in PowerPoint slides.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Lou Berger [SMTP:lberger@labn.net]
> > Sent:	Friday, September 22, 2000 12:05 PM
> > To:	Peter Ashwood-Smith
> > Cc:	'Dawkins, Spencer'; 'IETF MPLS mailing list'
> > Subject:	RE: Trying to be clearer about Generalized MPLS and MPLambdaS
> > 
> > 
> > The problem is that the meaning has changed along the way.  MPLambdaS 
> > started out as a technical term and, as you say, a sexy (marketing) 
> > term.  Now MPLambdaS is a subset of GMPLS.  Since MPLambdaS matches a 
> > particular class of devices and continues to be a sexy marketing term, I 
> > think we're stuck with it.
> > 
> > Lou
> > 
> > At 11:18 AM 9/21/00, Peter Ashwood-Smith wrote:
> > 
> > >I think the two terms are being used (incorrectly) interchangeably. 
> > >Generalized MPLS allows any kind of label of which a wavelength (lambda) 
> > >is one kind.
> > >
> > >A lot of this started with the thought that if we can switch a wavelength 
> > >on an input port to a new wavelength on an output port that this would be 
> > >MPLS. Where the 'L' is a wavelength. This thinking led very quickly to the 
> > >thought that anything we can 'switch' can effectively be controlled by 
> > >MPLS and so we included timeslots and entire fibers into the definition 
> > >and called it 'generalized'.
> > >
> > >Part of the problem is that MP<LAMBDA>S, sounds far more sexy than 
> > >Generalized MPLS signaling .. perhaps we need a new sexier name?
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >Peter Ashwood-Smith
> > >-----Original Message----- From:   Dawkins, Spencer 
> > >[SMTP:Spencer.DAWKINS@fnc.fujitsu.com] Sent:  Wednesday, September 20, 
> > >2000 10:52 AM To:    'IETF MPLS mailing list' Subject:       Trying to be 
> > >clearer about Generalized MPLS and MPLambdaS  I'm not entirely clear on 
> > >the relationship between Generalized MPLS and MPLambdaS. If I thought that
> > >
> > >- Generalized MPLS extends MPLS to include LSR interfaces that switch 
> > >packets, timeslots, wavelengths, or physical fiber links, while - 
> > >MPLambdaS describes an OXC control plane design that allows OXCs to 
> > >participate in networks using Generalized MPLS,
> > >
> > >how wrong would I be?
> > >
> > >Humbly,
> > >
> > >Spencer