The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Christopher Lewis <chrlewis@cisco.com>]

Daniel,

If you really believe these things, please open up a thread on the IETF 
PPVPN alias and explain your views there, I think that has all the 
necessary people on it to address your ideas.

Chris

At 06:40 PM 1/23/2002, Daniel Kharitonov wrote:
> > 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

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