PBT vs MPLS: Round VII

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 2 / 2

CoreRouterBuilder 12/5/2012 | 3:01:24 PM

re: PBT vs MPLS: Round VII You are absolutely right. (Nortel has a good track record in routing: Wefleet; CR LDP push in IETF).

Nortel should go to ITU to make PBT as a new standard

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

CoreRouterBuilder 12/5/2012 | 3:01:23 PM

re: PBT vs MPLS: Round VII Something like this will do the trick:

draft-martini-pwe3-802.1ah-pw-00.txt

In PBT they plan to use TCP based LDP (not RSVP TE) or manual provisioning for setting this up. People talking about TE; In MPLS TE, connection oriented ip is done by using extensions to OSPF TE and IS-IS TE. GÇôsource routing

I wander how they would want to do automatic traffic engineering in PBT end to end; I just do not see all the components to make this happened. Multiple Spanning Trees (MSPT)? well

I am not against innovation but it seems a lot of work needs to be done here for something like this to work

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

litereading 12/5/2012 | 3:01:21 PM

re: PBT vs MPLS: Round VII Ray, you might have misunderstood my point comparing routers and TDM switches - I wasn't implying that routers would go away because of PBT. What I was trying to convey was Telco's became so reliant upon TDM Switches that the few equipment vendors who made them were able to exert control over the service provider ability to offer services to their end customers and were able to sell the equipment at high margins. Eventually, telcos found their businesses in jeopardy by alternative technologies. Routers in a way have started to exert the same effect - controlled by a few vendors charging high margins exerting a strong influence on the services these service providers can provide.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Mark Seery 12/5/2012 | 3:01:19 PM

re: PBT vs MPLS: Round VII 1. On modern day routers

"Here are the next steps for PBT:

- a signaling protocol
- a topology distribution protocol
- an OAM protocol
- a link resiliency protocol
- QoS definitions

Guys, how is that NOT a modern day router? The logic defies me."

Well the above sounds a great deal like an ATM switch to me. Would you call an ATM switch a modern day router? Or would you call it a subset of a modern day IP/MPLS router in the form of MPLS? For example, what does any of the above suggest, if anything, about the desireability to for example virtualize NAT to provide a network-based IPVPN service? What else do IP routers do that have little to do with the above?

2. On routers as TDM switches

In so far as there is a difference between scaling millions of dynamic/short hold time subscriber to subscriber connections versus maintaining a long-hold connectivity matrix between only thousands or tens of thousands of locations an analogy can be drawn between the complication and justifiable risks of a voice switch control plane and IP routing, and correspondingly the potentially different mission of a transport-oriented control and/or management plane. However, my opinion is that it is a stretch to go beyond that. I would view IMS and/or competing web technologies as being much more the center of service features that are analagous to a TDM voice switch than what a router provides. In so far as there is a limited number of suppliers for a given technology then there is perhaps an additional analogy - but is this not what the market is in a sense addressing by creating multiple competing and fully/partially substitutiable (economically and technically) products and technologies for a given function?

3. On the "core"

In both this thread and a related thread, the term "core" is used like some kind of precise definition of something. Kind of reminds me of a statement such as "round up the following number: 1.444657858". Kind of meaningless unless you are making a significant and potentially error prone assumption.

Only those that believe there will only be one transfer protocol and layer could possibly use the term "core" in this way, from my perspective. It is like a closed model of networking being self-referential. Not just from a technical perspective but from an economic one as well. It is like suggesting a market needs one product at one price and all other ideas be damned. I suspect this market, like many others, will have the last say on this subject.

Same goes for "edge". Edge of what.

4. On the cost difference between IP/MPLS routing and PBB/PBB-TE

Many equipment vendors have multiple line cards and/or multiple products addressing different price points. If there are not any real cost differences between these offerings, then I see a potential problem for equipment vendors down the road in multiple dimensions as they try to explain their approach and pricing structure to operators. Either it does or it does not impact the cost of a product to provide large scale BGP and IPVPNs (a potentially separate problem domain from Ethernet transport/services). If it does not, then operators should be asking "why all these different product variations?"

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 2 / 2