The MPLS-OPS Archive

["Tim Irwin" <tirwin@bellsouth.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Kharitonov" <dkharitonov@yahoo.com>
To: "Mathew Lodge" <mathew@cplane.com>; <saqibj@margallacomm.com>
Cc: <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Market info re: MPLS


<SNIP>

> 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.

</SNIP>

Huh?  An enterprise will trust an ISP with their routes for Internet access
but not for their internal networks?

Maybe a better way to state it is that an enterprise might not want a third
party to have *visibility* into their network -- I would agree with that.

I'd say that IGPs are fragile things... not sure I would characterize it as
the ISP is "participating" in the IGP though.  Perhaps using MP-BGP/2547 as
the glue in the middle, but that's not participation in my mind so much as
it is providing edge-to-edge communication.

Whether or not customers want 2547 comes down to cost vs. benefit in my
mind.  I think there are organizations (such as state governments) who would
love to outsource their internal networks -- in fact, many already do.  The
question is if 2547 can provide a more cost-effective service due to the
economy of scale of a common infrastructure.  That being said, I think there
are a finite amount of customers that would find 2547 attractive in most
markets.  I certainly don't expect anyone beating down my door if I
announced a 2547 service (at this point).

I'd love to see a multi-hop IGP capability as that would eliminate a lot of
potential concerns that I have around 2547 scalability at the edge.

-Tim



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