RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

At 09:33 AM 5/10/2002 -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Thanks for your insightful reply. A few minor comments are in-line
>
>-Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:33 AM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: 'Sasha Vainshtein'; 'pwe3@ietf.org'; Danny McPherson (E-mail);
> > 'Andrew G. Malis'; Neil. 2. Harrison (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> >
> >
> >
> > Our original assumption long  ago was that no one with a
> > clue would want to
> > use a  scheme in  which each pseudowire  lays down  state in
> > the  P routers.  Otherwise it would be as bad (unscalable) as ATM.
>
>
>Sure, but what if the Provider network is small or supporting very few
>PWE3 connections.

         I agree with Eric's insightful assertion that making a solution 
scale realistically
to large numbers is paramount  What happens when the smaller networks
you refer to become large someday? Besides, given what I am hearing from
customer deployments and requirements, there is nothing small about either
their networks or the number of pseudo-wires they wish to install.

         --Tom





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. 


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3