[40318] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MPLS VPNs or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Tue Aug 7 09:54:21 2001
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:53:02 -0400
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net>
To: Daniel Golding <dan@netrail.net>
Cc: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010807095302.F18551@ns1.arch.bellsouth.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CKEOJFLLKMIPKODCKHKLAEAECCAA.dan@netrail.net>; from Daniel Golding on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:33:52AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:33:52AM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> Randy and Vijay are completely correct - 2547 is nothing but bad news.
Right.
> The
> comments about MPLS VPN security seem a little out of place - they could
> easily apply to Frame relay, for that matter. And nothing is stopping folks
> from encrypting anything they want. The story is quite good, though - the
> vendors are pushing 2547, some in the service provider community are
> listening, and they will end up regreting it.
Why?
> L2 MPLS VPNs, like CCC and
> Martini will one day provide a very nice alternative to Frame and ATM, but
> there is neither a market for, nor a scalable, safe way to deliver 2547.
Really. Based on what sort of market research and backup material?
--
Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm
Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S.
"I speak for myself only.""
