1 / 9

MPLS, GMPLS and Pseudowires: The Need for Cooperation Between Standards Bodies Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting adrian@o

MPLS, GMPLS and Pseudowires: The Need for Cooperation Between Standards Bodies Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting adrian@olddog.co.uk. www.mpls2005.com. Why Have Standards?. Do we all want standardization? Sometimes I wonder! Good for Providers More choice and flexibility Good for Vendors

vail
Download Presentation

MPLS, GMPLS and Pseudowires: The Need for Cooperation Between Standards Bodies Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting adrian@o

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MPLS, GMPLS and Pseudowires:The Need for Cooperation Between Standards BodiesAdrian FarrelOld Dog Consultingadrian@olddog.co.uk www.mpls2005.com

  2. Why Have Standards? • Do we all want standardization? • Sometimes I wonder! • Good for Providers • More choice and flexibility • Good for Vendors • Ease of market penetration • Good for Individuals • Transferable skill set • All of these points have equally powerful opposites

  3. Why Have Standards Bodies (SDOs)? • What is the alternative? • Each company develops and documents its own solution • Everyone has to implement two or three solutions • Chaos, confusion and expense • We can learn from other people • There is a relatively small global pool of “experts” • Acapulco is very nice at this time of year • Does everyone in the SDO want standardization?

  4. Which SDOs Impact MPLS and GMPLS? • Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) • International Telecommunications Union (ITU) • Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) • Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) • MPLS, ATM and Frame Relay Alliance (MFA) • Tele Management Forum (TMF) • IP Sphere ?? • Others ??

  5. Some Overlap Between SDOs • This is an understatement! • Converged networks imply converged SDOs • Examples: • IETF, ITU-T and OIF working on protocol specifications for control planes for optical networks • IETF and ITU-T overlap on MPLS applications such as • OAM • Pseudowires • MPLS transport • IETF examining ways to manage IEEE Ethernet networks • MFA and ITU-T working on MPLS NNIs etc.

  6. Are Multiple MPLS and GMPLS SDOs Helpful? • Against • Do we want multiple standards for the same function? • Can we hope to attend all relevant standards meetings? • SDOs become marketing organizations • Chaos, confusion and expense • For • Different SDOs have developed specializations • Different applications, protocols or functions • Architecture versus protocol • Requirements, experimentation, development, operation • Different SDO processes are conducive to different results • It’s good for job creation • Hawaii is a pretty nice place

  7. What Is the Solution? • SDOs have a duty of care to the industry • No SDO should regard itself as “better” than any other • Each SDO must protect itself from abuse • “Standards shopping” • Corporate politics • Each SDO must be aware of overlaps and potential overlaps • Communicate plans • Seek “natural homes” for work • Cooperate to a common goal

  8. What Form Should Cooperation Take? • Focus on the end result • Devolve work to areas of expertise • Clear sense of ownership of protocols • Understanding of wider implications of changing protocols • Responsiveness between SDOs • Questions and clarifications • Requests for assistance or work • Formal liaison process may be helpful

  9. Do We Need Formal Processes? • Skepticism, lack of trust, and turf wars • Bad history • Over-specified process may ensure smooth operation • Can relax the process in the future • Process must include a commitment to follow the process • For example: • MPLS and GMPLS Change Process (draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-01) • Makes the IETF the place for developing protocol extensions for MPLS and GMPLS • Includes a commitment by the IETF to receive requirements from other SDOs

More Related