[rrg] Fundamental objections to a host-based scalableroutingsolution

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Tony Li <tony.li at tony.li> wrote:
> Also, we should note that the reason that we get benefits from MPLS is that
> it allows us to have a hybrid network architecture, where we can support
> both connectionless (i.e. packet switching) and connection oriented (i.e.
> circuit switching) styles.  If we go down the path of map-&-encap, we're
> effectively deciding to run on top of a connection oriented infrastructure.
> What then happens to the hybrid strength of the architecture?

Huh? Your point escapes me.

In production we use MPLS to support both core routing (where the RIB
load on intermediate routers is reduced) . We also use it to provide
virtual circuits, such as virtual ethernets between one customer
location and another.

The latter use has nothing whatsoever to do with IP internetworking.
It's just another function that MPLS happens to be good for. My
routers can also implement frame relay switching and provide a PVC
between two customer locations. So what?

Why would map-encap for Internet core routing have any impact at all
on the use of MPLS for virtual circuits?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004