[40317] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Irwin Lazar)
Tue Aug 7 09:37:50 2001
Message-ID: <0C875DC28791D21192CD00104B95BFE7025A5A16@host2.tbg.com>
From: Irwin Lazar <ILazar@tbg.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:34:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
IMHO, this was a poorly written article. From a security standpoint, every
argument against MPLS-VPNs could also apply to ATM or F/R PVCs in that none
of the three provide any encryption. They try to paint MPLS as something
its not, then criticize it for not being what they want it to be. It's akin
to criticizing an automobile for not being able to fly.
I thought it most ludicrous that Tom Nolle would criticize MPLS-VPNs because
they will likely only be used on carrier's private IP networks. Based on
that logic, we should also criticize ATM and Frame Relay since carriers only
offer services across their own backbones.
I also found it interesting that the critics of MPLS as "bad for the 'net"
work for a company that currently offers MPLS-based VPN services in the U.S.
(IP Enabled Frame Relay) and is rolling those services out to Europe while
also expanding them to support ATM speeds. I'm betting that there are quite
a few very upset product managers at AT&T this morning.
Irwin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:37 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: MPLS VPNs or not?
>
>
>
> Experts call MPLS bad for 'Net
>
> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0806mpls.html
>
> Intersting read. This should start a nice long thread :-)
>
> -Hank
>
