[lacnog] FYI: Estandarizacion de MPLS

Mar Mar 1 18:55:00 BRT 2011

Buenas Tomas, lista,  
  Interesante el articulo. Increíble que esto ocurra luego de tantos años de MPLS en el mercado.
  IMHO yo creo que es muy pronto para predecir que realizará daños en las redes interconectadas, sin embargo el articulo en parte tiene razón. Ciertamente tu mencionas que MPLS se utiliza dentro de un AS (o parte de); pero también es muy cierto que existen diferentes AS que conectan sus redes utilizando MPLS, aquí es donde creo que el articulo anuncia la advertencia. Siempre existirá una solución (¿desactivar el etiquetado en las WAN?) pero poco elegante.
  Finalmente lo que pienso puede ocurrir es que los dos "bandos" se pondrán de acuerdo en el camino y/o los vendors tendrán que soportar ambos estándares trayendo docenas de problemas por detrás.

  Esto me recuerda una vez que leí una frase que decía algo como: "Lo malo tantos estandares es que luego no queda ninguno" 

Alejandro,

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net 
> [mailto:lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net] En nombre de Tomas Lynch
> Enviado el: Martes, 01 de Marzo de 2011 04:46 p.m.
> Para: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
> Asunto: Re: [lacnog] FYI: Estandarizacion de MPLS
> 
> Fernando,
> 
> No entiendo por qué dos protocolos distintos de OAM pueden 
> "jeopardize the globally interconnected Internet" Seguramente 
> es mi ignorancia de OAM pero ¿no es un protocolo que usa 
> internamente cada red/AS? Si no lo fuera, seguramente todos 
> los proveedores de equipos soportarán los dos (si, un poco 
> ingenuo esto pero posible).
> 
> Es decir, entiendo que la ITU haga estas cosas, siempre lo 
> hicieron, pero más allá de lo político, ¿en qué afecta 
> operativamente a nuestras redes? Links a Wikipedia, RFCs, 
> etc. son bienvenidos. Gracias,
> 
> Tomás
> 
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Fernando Gont 
> <fernando en gont.com.ar> wrote:
> >
> > Fuente: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3295
> >
> > ITU decision Q&A
> >
> > What is MPLS?
> >
> > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a networking 
> standard, created 
> > by the IETF, that assigns labels to data packets, which can then 
> > operate across multiple different protocols. Forwarding or 
> switching 
> > decisions for MPLS packets from one network node to another 
> are made 
> > on the basis of the label (i.e., without requiring equipment to 
> > examine the packet's
> > content) facilitating easy to create end-to-end circuits. MPLS is 
> > commonly used to create Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), 
> and it can be 
> > used to deliver different levels of quality of service (QoS) for 
> > different types of data. It is also gives service providers 
> > flexibility in routing; for example, to avoid broken links 
> or failures.
> >
> > What is the IETF's role with respect to MPLS?
> >
> > The IETF defined the MPLS specification, as part of the overall 
> > Internet technology specifications, which include the Internet 
> > Protocol version 4
> > (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).
> >
> > What is OAM?
> >
> > OAM stands for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance; it is 
> > essentially the set of tools that assist an operator in 
> managing and 
> > troubleshooting a network. This includes everything from ping and 
> > traceroute to SNMP, NetConf, and a variety of other 
> management tools.
> >
> > What has happened recently?
> >
> > At a meeting that ran late into the evening on Friday 25th February 
> > 2011 in Geneva, one of the ITU's technology focused study 
> groups, the 
> > ITU-T Study Group 15, determined a Recommendation that defines 
> > operations, administration and management (OAM) for MPLS transport 
> > networks. The determined Recommendation is at odds with an IETF 
> > standard, in spite of an agreement put in place by the ITU and the 
> > IETF two years ago to avoid such an outcome.
> >
> > Why does this action matter?
> >
> > By deciding to initiate its own non-interoperable MPLS technology 
> > development, the ITU has created a situation where, in the future 
> > there will be two groups of MPLS products that will not 
> work together. 
> > While the impact may not be immediate, ongoing evolution along this 
> > path will jeopardize the globally interconnected Internet.
> >
> > Haven't these international organizations worked together 
> to develop 
> > MPLS standards and technologies?
> >
> > Yes. Over the last few years, the ITU and the IETF have 
> successfully 
> > collaborated on work in this field. Several years ago, both 
> > organizations created a joint working team (JWT) to examine the 
> > feasibility of developing a single, collaborative solution to MPLS 
> > transport requirements.
> >
> > The JWT provided a report that stated not only that a 
> single solution 
> > was possible but also confirmed that it was possible to extend the 
> > existing MPLS architecture to meet additional requirements. 
>  The JWT 
> > report went on to recommend that protocol development for this 
> > enhanced MPLS, to be known as MPLS-TP, should be undertaken by the 
> > IETF. Both organisations subsequently endorsed these findings and 
> > formally accepted the JWT report in December 2008.
> >
> > Regarding the MPLS OAM, the agreement based on the JWT report also 
> > stated that both organizations are able to work in this field; but 
> > with the fundamental agreement that each would deliver mutually 
> > compatible technologies.
> >
> > What is likely to happen with two non-interoperable 
> standards are developed?
> >
> > If both technologies are deployed, it is likely that there will be 
> > confusion; if only one is deployed, the existence of the 
> alternative 
> > is irrelevant. In this instance, there are believed to be 
> commercial 
> > products in development for both proposals, so confusion 
> appears inevitable.
> >
> > Is there a commercial reason for the ITU to create a 
> separate standard?
> > Was the organization responding to customer demand?
> >
> > The organization is driven to respond to its membership's demands, 
> > expressed through contributions.  Certain members chose to develop 
> > this competing technology in the ITU, developing a second solution, 
> > instead of just one as recommended by the Joint Working Team (JWT).
> >
> > What role does the IETF play in Internet standards development?
> >
> > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the world's premier 
> > Internet standards developer. Its mission is to make the 
> Internet work 
> > better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that 
> > influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
> >
> > Why are global standards so important?
> >
> > The Internet we know today could not have come about without open, 
> > interoperable, global standards. The availability of open standards 
> > means that anyone, anywhere in the world can design products, 
> > applications and technologies that enhance the Internet's 
> functionality.
> >
> > What about multi-stakeholder collaboration in standards development?
> >
> > The Internet Society believes that any interested parties, 
> individuals 
> > or organizations should be able to contribute to standards 
> development.
> > In fact the IETF ensures that any interested person can 
> participate in 
> > its work, know what is being decided, and make his or her 
> voice heard 
> > on the issue. We believe that this collaborative approach 
> leads to the 
> > development of an Internet that delivers the maximum value.
> >
> > Did the IETF participate in the ITU-T SG15? Who made the decision?
> >
> > The Internet Society is the organizational home for the 
> IETF, and the 
> > IETF participates through the Internet Society's ITU-T sector 
> > membership.  In that role, the IETF/Internet Society spoke against 
> > this action.  Ultimately, the decision was made by a vote. Only ITU 
> > member states (not Sector Members) were allowed to vote.
> >
> > How has this sort of disconnect between the IETF and ITU 
> been handled 
> > in the past?
> >
> > This action is without precedent.
> >
> > What will the IETF do?
> >
> > The IETF will complete its work on a MPLS OAM specification. In the 
> > ongoing pursuit of a globally interoperable solution, the IETF 
> > continues to gather transport requirements and work to extend IETF 
> > MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability, network management, 
> and control 
> > plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF 
> Standards Process.
> >
> > --
> > Fernando Gont
> > e-mail: fernando en gont.com.ar || fgont en acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 
> > 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LACNOG mailing list
> > LACNOG en lacnic.net
> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> 