I have to take the opposite view.
Without saying that MPLS is "the answer", requiring that we restrict our
work to only the current hop-by-hop view restricts what is possible
significantly. It is reasonable to say taht we have to allow the current
behaviors. But it is not reasonable to say taht we should ONLY allow
current behaviors. If we allow "path setups" or "flow setups" or ... there
are things that become possible with IP that are extremely difficult
otherwise (I hesitate to say impossible only because folks find ways to
twist the tools to get what they want even if we could not see a way to do
so. But the cost is often quite high.)
For example, in a hop-by-hop environment policies can only be effect by 1)
choice of immediate exit or 2) control over advertised information. This
tends to lead one towards system where portions of the network manipulate
how other parts of the network are seen. I happen to think that is an
unfortunate way to approach the problem. Declaring that because Randy
dislikes other approaches we should not even look at the possible benefits
of moving the logic around a bit seems quite self-limiting.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:40 AM 1/14/02 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> circuit/path provisioning is an important issue for isps. but it is not
> >> ip routing.
> >
> > Hopefully, we won't preclude the use of routing as an input to more
> > automated provisioning.
> >
> > In addition, things get blurred, admittedly when we talk about things
> > we can today, when we start talking about systems of tunnels
> > overlaying the actual circuits. Augmented routing protocols may very
> > well be the signaling mechanisms for such systems.
>
>if folk want to use is-is to help deliver sushi, cool. but that does
>not mean it is our problem.
>
>randy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT