Tom.Petch wrote: > I think that the conclusion in s.4, that this is the solution to problems of > cooperation, will turn out to be rather rose-tinted in years to come. It virtually means that IETF stop working as an independent standaradization organization and, considering continuous failures of IETF to standardize useful protocols these days, is rather welcome. > I track the mpls-tp list and see two very different styles, of process, of > commenting, of consensus (know any other IETF lists where 10 successive posts > were each about one Megabyte in size?) which tells me that the differences > between ITU-T and IETF have just been moved to another forum. MPLS failed merely because the concept of MPLS is broken from the beginning. MPLS started with "topology driven with nested labels", which was advertised to scale because of route aggregation. However, to let senders specify inner labels, the senders MUST know routing tables internal to destinations, which denys route aggregation and dose NOT SCALE. Later, people working on MPLS start saying TE. However, before MPLS, TE means L1 TE to provide sufficient resouce to L1 on which large traffic is expected. There is no point to use MPLS as L2 forwarding is as expensive as L3 forwarding and TE at L2 is mostly useless. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf