RE: MPLS VPNs or not?

[Vadim Antonov <avg () exigengroup com>]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
> I don't think UUNET considered it a waste. UUNET could not have grown
> as quickly as it did during the mid to late 90s without L2 (Frame and
> ATM) technologies.  Fortunately for them, they did not have any pure IP
> only zealots that prevented the pragmatic use of other technologies
> in their networks. 

Did I ever argue against L2 switching?  It is a fine way to do traffic
aggregation/deaggregation.  Just don't do _routing_ with that.

> Otherwise they probably would not have been able
> to outrun the other ISPs.
>
> UUNET received two benefits from it: 
>
>       1.  Speed, since at the time L2 switches were faster 
>           than routers, and 

Ghm.  FR boxen were cheaper, not faster. ATM at some point was faster, but
was (still is?) quite flaky.  Networks i engineered had plenty of L2
switches in them - for clustering in POPs.

>       2.  Traffic engineering, which saved them money in transport 
>           costs.

TE at the cost of 20% of available bandwidth wasted to cell tax?  You must
be kidding.  Do not forget that TE could be done at SONET level, too.

> I guess the real question should be how much market cap did other
> companies lose because of certain people's zealotry?  Any answers
> Vadim?

Absolutely. Stupidity of your regular analysts, who were rewarding
companies investing into the latest overhyped crap.  I hope these times
are over by now, and companies will actually start looking at the bottom
line.

Now, if you find an example of a network going down _because_ of pure-IP
design (not because of stupid business tactics such as overexpansion,
idiotic acquisitions, or simple mismanagement), i'll agree with you.  So
far, most of networks which went down (or were acquired at bargain
prices) were hybrid designs.  Also note that UUNET _did not_ survive as an
independent ISP.  I know few ex-UUNET folks who weren't very thrilled
because of that.

--vadim