RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux at francetelecom.com>]

Hi Andrew,

>I'm not a fan 
> of "let the market decide" 
> because in the end, as a vendor you have to do both - 

Look at the RSVP-TE vs CR-LDP case, this is a good example, a bit related to our case here by the way:-), were the market decided, and it seems to me that not many vendors implemented both...

Regards,

JL
 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] De 
> la part de Andrew G. Malis
> Envoyé : lundi 14 novembre 2005 21:59
> À : Gray, Eric
> Cc : Mark Townsley; 'Yaakov Stein'; pwe3 at ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary
> 
> Eric,
> 
> Yeah, but we don't want to restrict it to a single 
> administrative domain.  I also agree with many of the others 
> in the meeting - let's choose one and move on.  I'm not a fan 
> of "let the market decide" 
> because in the end, as a vendor you have to do both - 
> especially if big vendor a goes one way, big vendor b goes 
> the other, and everyone else needs to interoperate with both 
> a and b.  And most times, even the big vendors find that 
> their customers want them to interoperate with their 
> competition, so they end up doing it both ways as well.
> 
> The only way we should approve both is if we can define a 
> completely dynamic interface between the two that requires no 
> more provisioning by the service providers than if we had 
> only chosen one.  Otherwise, we're shortchanging the 
> operators and the rest of the community.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> -------
> 
> At 11/14/2005 18:39 -0200, Gray, Eric wrote:
> >Yaakov,
> >
> >         This is a very narrow view of the purpose for multi-segment 
> >pseudo-wires.  There are applications for pseudo-wire 
> stitching within 
> >a single administrative domain.
> >
> >--
> >Eric
> >
> >--> -----Original Message-----
> >--> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> >--> Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
> >--> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:14 PM
> >--> To: Mark Townsley; pwe3 at ietf.org
> >--> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary
> >-->
> >-->
> >--> > To be clear, I said that "coexistance" was a necessity to be
> >--> documented by the WG.
> >--> > Whether coexistance equates to interworking depends on the MS
> >--> requirements.
> >-->
> >--> Since the whole idea of MPLS MS-PWs is to facilitate the 
> >--> interworking of different operators, as far as I see coexistence 
> >--> must mean either
> >-->
> >--> 1) fully interwork
> >--> 2) mandate that they never have to cooperate.
> >-->
> >--> The latter would probably end up with everyone having to support 
> >--> both signaling protocols, and often setting up 
> additional PWs just 
> >--> to circumvent the limitation.
> >-->
> >--> Y(J)S
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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