The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Daniel Kharitonov <dkharitonov@yahoo.com>]

> issue). RFC2547 is good 
> for large, complex VPNs, but too complicated for
> smaller VPNs or 
> point-to-point. 

This is not my point. RFC2547 does it's job well.
Problem lies in the fact, that an ISP in the middle of
the client's routing protocol is ridiculous anyway.
And as I said, the fix for this is actually outside of
the MPLS scope. It is just amazing, how far the
technology developers are from the real world.

> The interesting
> thing is that these 
> technology solutions seem to map fairly well to
> small, medium and large 
> enterprises, respectively, so there's a sort of
> "natural" segmentation of 
> the marketplace.

I am yet to see a large enterprise network manager who
would allow an ISP to participate in his IGP. This is
scary and, furthermore, unneded. Once Cisco will
introduce multihop configuration option to the CE
IGPs, the whole issue will fade away together with
PE-VPN scalability concerns.


--
DK

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

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