The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Danny McPherson <danny@ambernetworks.com>]

> And the point is that not every vendor may have sufficient expertise
> to implement this in a scalable and robust fashion. But, of course,
> I doubt any vendor who falls into this category is going to admit
> this, especially in public. So, here comes FUD...

Ahh, and he hits the nail on the head folks!  The point is
"that not every vendor may have sufficient expertise to 
implement this in a scalable and robust fashion".  

So, in layman's terms:  "The more stuff the incumbents like
Cisco and Juniper glue together to create BGP/MPLS VPNs the 
larger the barrier to entry for new folks [things such as 
architectural cleanliness and operational aspects are of 
little concern in this arena, in case it wasn't obvious]".  

Of course, the incumbents have demonstrated that not all
things they implement are robust and scalable either, and 
the benefit to the new players is that they don't have to
carry all the baggage along. 

So, as I'm certain things will hash themselves out, I'm also 
quite certain that the new players will support the 2547ish 
gunk, as they realize their not the ones to "move the market", 
some with better implementations than the incumbents, some 
not...

Perhaps the new players will bring better solutions along as
well, who knows...

-danny  

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml