Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

[Andy Li <andyli9898 at gmail.com>]

Please also take the trend of global telecommunication providers into
picture. The MS-PW job done so far has already help out quite a bit.
We should just leave the rest to the providers which, by the way, have
their focus more on profitability but signaling inter-op.

My 0.02
Andy

On 11/11/05, Andy Li <andyli9898 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shane
>
>    Not arguing with you. Jumper cables between ODF(DDF) has been however a
> fact for SP to provision circuits ever since the first day the lease line
> (called DDN in China) was introduced. I also admit it was part of the reason
> why SP wanna get rid of it and replace it with CES back in late 1990 in
> order to cut OPEX. We are now just trying to do it again with either GMPLS
> signaled devices, i.e. MSTP/MSPP or PW over bandwidth-rich IP backbone(s).
> In fact, we do have a customer today which runs provisioning three times in
> order to provide MS-PW over two-tier backbone
> (provincial-national-provincial)! While we wait for the
> standard(s), jumper cable between ODF(DDF) is the best practice.
>
>    I sometimes wonder why SP is still working with us (vendors) to define
> their secret weapons (aka new telecom services). Back in the old days, AT&T
> would have probably implemented it in their own lab so that they could have
> OPEX advantage over other carriers.  I guess neither IETF nor any of us has
> the responsibility promoting fair competition. Let market decide which one
> will be the least-evil if there is one.
>
>  Best
>  Andy Li
>
>  PS. I think fair competition kills AT&T :-)))
>
>
> On 11/10/05, Shane Amante <shane at castlepoint.net> wrote:
> > I disagree.  The problem with the approach you suggest in your last
> > sentence below is it's very manually intensive (read: non-dynamic) in
> > terms of provisioning (adds, changes, decomm's) of MS-PW's between two
> > domains.  I would much rather have a dynamic MS-PW protocol running
> > across a Carrier<->Carrier interface, than humans stringing cables in
> > patch panels.   Therefore, IMO (as an SP), MS-PW interop is extremely
> > important thing to figure out before we go much further down the path of
> > MS-PW and vendors start to implement pre-standard, non-interoperable
> > versions of MS-PW creating [even more of] a mess for SP's.
> >
> > Furthermore, let's not forget that one of the significant downsides to
> > two, separate MS-PW protocols (that do not interoperate) is that some
> > carriers will get locked into one vendor who only implements MS-PW
> > protocol "A", while the rest of the market/carriers have chosen MS-PW
> > protocol "B".  Or, carriers tell vendors to implement both, (because
> > they don't want lock-in), which begs the question of why didn't we just
> > choose one in the beginning?  At the risk of stating the obvious, why
> > can't we just apply the 80/20 rule in deciding which one of the
> > protocols is best, (a.k.a.: "least-evil"), and move forward with it,
> > rather than cycling on two protcols simultaneously and figuring out
> > various interactions/interoperation between the two?
> >
> > In the end, it is my hope that the WG does ultimately decide on *one*
> > MS-PW protocol in order to avoid confusion in the marketplace which
> > ultimately will hurt not only vendors, but also SP's and SP's customers.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> >
> > -shane
> >
> >
> > Andy Li wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >   I don't think it is necessary to have both signaling mechanism for
> > > MS-PW inter-op with each other. If two providers agree to peer with
> > > each other to provide PW services, it will be a bonus if they two use
> > > the same mechanism to set up PW circuits. If not, the business
> > > interests will encourage them to stitch the PW circuits by using
> > > back2back logical/virtual interface(s) or even a jumper fiber between
> > > ODF.
> > >
> > >   Therefore, out of my own opinion, the inter-op requirement should be
> removed.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Andy Li
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > pwe3 at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> >
>
>

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