At 9:11 AM -0800 1/14/02, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Second, the question of whether we need to support MPLS, per se, or not
>> is an important one. There are lots of things that routers can do at
>> line rate, but because they can do something at line rate is not enough
>> reason to require that the new architecture support that thing. Current
>> implementation abilities ought not drive the development of requirements.
>> In other words, we should require what is needed, not what we can currently
>> do.
>
>i thought we were doing layer three routing, not layer two switching. if
>the latter, then we have to cover frame relay, atm, mpls, ethernet, ...
>i think we will have more than enough work if we stick to the internet
>protocols and packets.
>
>randy
Is the idea of a technology-independent sub-IP control abstraction
within scope? It would have such primitives as "create path with
constraints".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT