[31041] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Sep 6 21:06:57 2000
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <200009070056.JAA25642@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <E13WglQ-0006KO-00@roam.psg.com> from Randy Bush at "Sep 6, 2000
05:05:24 pm"
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:56:40 +0859 ()
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Randy;
> > I think you are confused. PEs are edges, route reflectors have nothing
> > to do with the core (in the context of bgp/mpls vpn).
>
> real networks tend not to put pops where there are no peers or customers.
Real networks?
The RFC explicitly states that:
: We are not focused on providing VPNs over the public Internet.
The RFC has nothing to do with the Internet.
So, real networks, here, should be interpreted as telephone networks,
part of which may be private IP networks.
Recent introduction, by IETF, of intelligent intermediate entities
such as edge routers, policy decision points and call agents is the
direct violation of the end to end principle which causes a lot
of scalablity problems.
But, do you think telephone network operators mind?
IETF, now, means Intelligent Extension of Telephone Forum.
> imiho, mpls vpns are a ploy in the router vendor war, escalating use of
> each other's engineering resources, trying to keep out the small vendors.
That's exactly what IBM did with computers, until it was defeated
by UNIX and RISC.
What else can you expect with Cisco?
Masataka Ohta
