[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

Well I work for a vendor, but I agree with Ray.

Requiring the upgrade of boxes built to the PWE3-WG SS-PW
spec is not acceptable. We have to be backwards compatible
with our phase-1 design.

- Stewart


Ray Qiu wrote:

A simple answer like "just upgrade your box" doesn't do any good for service providers. If a provider is providing LDP based SS-PWs today, they would have to upgrade all their boxes and re-provision the SS-PW services when MS-PW is introduced. This is not desirable.

--Ray

On 11/18/05, Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) <busschbach at lucent.com <mailto:busschbach at lucent.com>> wrote:

I plead guilty. But could you explain how a provider would look at it?


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ray Qiu [mailto:ray.qiu at gmail.com
        <mailto:ray.qiu at gmail.com>]
        Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:15 PM
        To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
        Cc: Shah, Himanshu; Gray, Eric; Andrew G. Malis; Drake, John
        E; Thomas D. Nadeau; Yaakov Stein; pwe3 at ietf.org
        <mailto:pwe3 at ietf.org>; Mark Townsley
        Subject: Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

It is so obvious that the answer came from a vendor not a
provider. 

        --Ray

        On 11/18/05, Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) <
        busschbach at lucent.com <mailto:busschbach at lucent.com>> wrote:

            The interop discussion has many facets. One of them seems
            to be the notion that there are existing SS-PW devices
            supporting LDP, with which any new solution must be able
            to interwork.

The answer is easy: upgrade the legacy equipment with new
software so that it supports whatever solution is selected
for MS-PWs. 


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