Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Changes to PW ACH Channel Typeallocationpolicy
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Changes to PW ACH Channel Typeallocationpolicy



Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:


On 10/3/08 10:52 AM, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>
wrote:

Hi Italo,

It is much more than a codepoint and ensuring the nodes are provisioned
correctly - which is in itself difficult - especially in large networks.
Here's just a partial list of additional concerns from an operator:
- proprietary protocols perpetuate the use of vendor islands - good for
a vendor/bad for an operator;-(
- each protocol, proprietary or not, for an operator requires testing of
the protocol itself, not just if it works as it should, but also
development and testing of failure scenarios, and the negotiation with
the vendor for fixes. And if it's proprietary, an operator is on their
own for determining bugs, determining the correct fix, testing the fix,
etc, etc.
- OS development - this is probably the biggest hit on time for
deployment and most costly (and it's not just for deployment, it
continues for the lifetime).

Which is why we have standards. I'm sure the others can add many more
(still on my first coffee here) and take a look back over Shane's mails.

    Nothing to add here; hits the nail right on the head.

    --Tom

Ditto.

-shane
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls



Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.